Join our community of SUBSCRIBERS and be part of the conversation.
To subscribe, simply enter your email address on our website or click the subscribe button below. Don't worry, we respect your privacy and won't spam your inbox. Your information is safe with us.
Immediate past Finance and National Planning Minister Situmbeko Musokotwane has charged that plans by the Patriotic Front government to have former President Rupiah Banda’s immunity lifted are based on unsubstantiated accusations.
Speaking in an exclusive interview with Qfm, Dr. Musokotwane says MMD Members of Parliament will not support the motion when it is taken parliament.
He says it is unfortunate that people are calling for the lifting of Mr. Banda’s immunity in the absence of firm grounds on his involvement in corrupt practices.
The former finance minister who is Liuwa MMD Member of Parliament further explains that the move will set a bad precedent on future Presidents of the country.
And in a separate interview, Chisamba MMD Member of Parliament Moses Muteteka has pleaded Mr. Banda’s innocence.
He says the former head of state does not deserve to be treated harshly.
Mr. Muteteka who served in Mr. Banda’s government as Local government deputy minister has since vowed not to support the motion to lift the former President’s immunity.
Article 34 of the Constitution of the Republic of Zambia 1991 (as amended in 1996) contains the notorious “presidential parentage” clause, which among other things states that for one to be president of Zambia both parents should be “citizens of Zambia by birth or descent.” Following questions that have been raised concerning the eligibility of Zambia’s vice-president Hon. Guy Scott on whether he qualifies to hold the office of vice-president or whether he qualifies to stand for the office of president, I wish to conduct an exegetical study of current Zambian constitutional law. This study will show that if Article 34 is read together with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lewanika and others v Frederick Chiluba, Guy Scott and many others would qualify to stand for the office of President of the Republic.
In the context of a republic such as ours, a constitution is the supreme law of the land. Constitutional supremacy means that the constitution is the tenet by which all institutions of government are governed. It also means that any law made by the legislature that is inconsistent with the Constitution can be struck down. The role of striking down a law that is inconsistent with the constitution is a preserve of the courts. In our context, it is the High Court and the Supreme Court that have the powers to declare any given law null and void if it violates the constitution. However, the Zambian courts do not have the powers to strike down any article in the constitution. The only power they have with regard to the constitution is the power to interpret it. The extent to which the power to interpret actually goes into questioning or even striking down a constitutional article is a philosophical one. All lawyers and jurists within the common law systems at least would agree that the consequence of judicial interpretation sometimes does go into judicial legislation. In other words, even if judges claim to only be interpreters of the law, the consequence of their interpretation might lead to subtly altering the law.
The consequence of judicial interpretation means that a constitution like we have in Zambia is derived from several sources. First, our constitution is derived from a written physical document, which was passed by our parliament in 1991 and amended in 1996. What that document contains is our constitution. However, that document alone does not constitute Zambian constitutional law. A correct view of the constitutional law of our republic therefore should be found in that document as well as rulings of the High Court and the Supreme Court that have interpreted some sections of that constitution. It is important to note here that Zambians should pay particular attention to judicial rulings because they as well as the constitutional document comprise the constitution of the Republic of Zambia. If someone therefore asks you what the constitution says about “presidential parentage” you would be in order to quote Article 34 (3) (c). However, if you have to correctly interpret this article then you must refer to the rulings of the courts on this matter.
What this means is that Article 34 (3) (c) the famous presidential parentage clause should be interpreted within the ambit of judicial rulings. But why are judicial rulings important? First, judicial rulings are important because they become law. In law, through the principle of judicial precedence, when a higher court in a hierarchy rules on a matter all lower courts are supposed to follow that precedence. Consequently, what the higher courts rules on a matter becomes law with regard to that matter under consideration. Second, court cases are important because they show the development of our laws and the constitution. Third, judicial decisions are important because constitutionally, it is the judges who are final arbiters in legal, equitable and constitutional matters. Every lawyer or jurists worth his salt, therefore pays particular attention to court rulings.
This brings me to Article 34 (3) (c). What it says seems simple: a Zambian presidential candidate must have parents who are Zambians by birth or descent. But the next question is, what does this mean? Well this article can mean different things to different people. This article contains some concepts or ideas that we take for granted but indeed would require a tome to interpret. Concepts such as “parent”, “birth”, “descent”, or even “Zambia” could mean different things to different people. But if we are to remain faithful to the rule of law, then we must defer to the courts a legal interpretation of these concepts. If we are to remain faithful to the rule of law in Zambia then we must take what the courts have ruled on this matter as the correct interpretation of the law.
The meaning of Article 34 (3) (c) was adequately provided in the Supreme Court case of Lewanika and others v Frederick Chiluba. In consistent with the constitutional doctrine of stare decisis it is important that lawyers and jurists give adequate respect for this ruling for it helps us interpret the constitution. In fact, Chiluba is a constitutional milestone.
The Chiluba case is an important constitutional case. Since the Supreme Court has not reversed it, it remains law and is consequently part of Zambia’s constitutional law. But what was this case all about? In 1996, the Zambian parliament amended the Zambian constitution and among other things included the “presidential parentage” clause in the constitution. At that time, it was widely believed that parliament passed that law to disqualify President Kenneth Kaunda from standing since Kaunda’s parents are believed to have come from present-day Malawi. Indeed in the 1996 elections, Kaunda boycotted the elections and urged his UNIP party to abscond. Chiluba and his MMD contested the 1996 elections and other parties that include Dean Mung’omba’s party and Agenda for Zambia a party led by Inonge-Mbikusita Lewanika and his brother Akashambatwa. These elections were conducted on the newly amended constitution.
After the elections however, Chiluba won beating his closes rival Dean Mung’omba by a wide margin. Lewanika and others petitioned the Supreme Court asking the court to overturn Chiluba’s election as president. They contended among other things that Frederick Chiluba could not be president of Zambia because he did not satisfy Article 34 (3) (c) of the Constitution of Zambia. Lewanika and others contended that they had evidence that Chiluba was not born in Zambia and that his parent (especially his father) was not Zambian at all.
The ruling of the Supreme Court on this matter is very significant because in it, the court interpreted Article 34. Additionally, in this ruling the court even went to the extent of criticising parliament’s law making rationale and logic. For those who know constitutional law, this criticism is indeed remarkable and quite unusual. But in unpalatable language, a full bench of Supreme Court held that through Article 34 parliament had created problems for Zambians in the future. And considering what is happening now barely a decade after the ruling, the Supreme Court judges indeed were prophetic.
First, the court held that a Zambian like Chiluba would still satisfy Article 34 even if he were born in a neighbouring country like Congo. If it were shown that Chiluba was a British protected person by the time of his birth and that he “ordinarily” resided in Zambia at independence, he would satisfy the requirement of being a Zambian by birth or descent. Using this rule—it means that all those people like Kenneth Kaunda and Guy Scott who were ordinarily in Zambia at independence and were British protected persons satisfy the requirement of being “Zambian by birth or descent.”
Second, the court had identified serious problems with the requirement that a presidential candidate’s parents should be Zambians by “birth or descent”. The Supremes remarked that this law would present serious problems for the future. In essence they ruled that, this article couldn’t apply to Zambians whose parents were born before 1964—before there was a Republic of Zambia. Essentially then, people like Chiluba (born 1944), Michael Sata (born 1944), Rupiah Banda (born 1943), Guy Scott (born c.1940) and or Kenneth Kaunda (born 1924) cannot produce Zambian parents. This is because by the time that the parents of these people were born in the 1800s, there was no legal or constitutional entity known as Zambia. As such, Banda, Kaunda, Guy Scott, or Sata cannot produce parents who are Zambian by “birth or descent.” Sata’s father or Rupiah Banda’s father were not born in Zambia, and they were not descended from Zambia—Zambia itself being an entity born in 1964 and whose citizenship requirements were set out in the 1963 constitution.
[pullquote]Guy Scott himself has equally concluded the wrong way by claiming that he cannot be President of Zambia. Nothing is further from the legal truth; in fact according to law Scott does satisfy the requirements.[/pullquote]
Third, the Supreme Court then addressed a very interesting phenomenon that indeed would apply to Guy Scott. How does Article 34 apply to a white Zambian? In clear language the Supreme Court ruled that satisfying the articles of the constitution have nothing to do with the colour of one’s skin or tribe. In fact, the ruling even went to give an example of an ethnic Chinese. Essentially, the court ruled that if a Chinese was ordinarily resident in Zambia in 1964 and acquired Zambian citizenship at independence Article 34 should not exclude him from standing for the office of president. Additionally, in a rather comic way, the Chinese example was again used—the Supreme Court painted a hypothetical situation and said that an ethnic Chinese child born in Zambia post 1964 but who gets adopted by black Zambian parents would still qualify since he too can claim that his parents were Zambian by birth or descent. This made the Supremes to ask a rhetorical question, so which “parentage” is parliament talking about here? Is it biological or is it adoptive parentage. From the perspective of the judges clearly Article 34 was rather unimpressive.
Keeping with the arguments above, it is my conclusion that notwithstanding Article 34, Hon Guy Lindsay Scott can legally satisfy the requirement of Article 34 and can in fact serve as President of the Republic of Zambia. Unless overruled, the case of Lewanika and others v Frederick Chiluba is law and therefore applies to Guy Lindsay Scott.
The Attorney General of the Republic of Zambia is therefore wrong at law by advising that Guy does not meet the requirements of Article 34. Clearly, if Article 34 were read with the ruling of the Supreme Court, the Attorney General would come to the same conclusion as I have done. Guy Scott himself has equally concluded the wrong way by claiming that he cannot be President of Zambia. Nothing is further from the legal truth; in fact according to law Scott does satisfy the requirements.
The PF has endorsed the decision by its losing parliamentary candidates to petition the election victory of some MMD MPs appointed to ministerial positions by President Sata.
Party Secretary General, Wynter Kabimba says the party will back the petitions regardless of the MMD MPs relations with the government.
Mr. Kabimba says the party will not stop members who have petitioned presidential appointees as it is within their rights to do so.
He says Zambians are looking for an environment that will ensure free and fair elections.
Meanwhile, UPND has withdrawal from the february, 16th, 2012 Msanzala by-election in Eastern Province amid fears of vote splitting among opposition parties.
UPND, which is largely dominant in Southern Zambia claims that it is currently pre-occupied by legal battles in the courts of law, as a result of what it terms PF engineered election petitions.
Party Deputy Spokesperson, Cornelius Mweetwa says the decision to withdraw from the race is further meant to consolidate the numbers of the opposition in Parliament to ensure effective checks and balances.
The Msanzala by-election follows the resignation of Independent Parliamentarian: Colonel Joseph Lungu and his subsequent defection to the ruling PF.
Mr. Mweetwa also criticized Colonel Lungu for facilitating a useless by election at the expense of the electorate.
Colonel Lungu is also reported to have applied to re-contest the seat on the PF ticket.
President, Sata has been accused of having turned himself in to the police and courts through the manner he is handling allegations of abuse of authority against former government leaders.
An opposition political party has since asked President, Sata to stop prosecuting former government officials openly but leave the task to competent courts of law.
UPND is concerned that President Sata has continued meddling and interfering with the operations of the judiciary when dealing with matters involving former government leaders.
Recently, President Sata accused former Government leaders such, as George Kunda and embattled Former Education Minister, Dora Siliya of having benefitted from questionable transactions while in Government.
This has seemingly created undue pressure on law enforcement agencies to intensify the fight against corrupt in an attempt to please the head of state.
UPND Party Deputy Spokesperson, Cornelius Mweetwa said that the head of state has turned himself into a judge without subjecting the suspects to the courts of law to determine their fate.
Meanwhile, UPND president Hakainde Hichilema has said his party has a bright future out of the other major political parties in Zambia despite losing last year’s tripartite elections.
Mr Hichilema said his party was strengthening all structures after putting the loss at presidential level behind.
The opposition party leader, who was speaking when he featured on Zambezi FM Radio programme ‘The Journalist’ yesterday, said he would campaign on the platform of improving the welfare of the majority poor.
He said UPND was better-placed to win the next tripartite elections in 2016 because it was the ‘only party which was committed to improving the welfare of citizens in the country.’
Mr Hichilema said the Patriotic Front (PF) and the MMD had similar values, noting that they ‘stemmed’ from the United National Independence Party (UNIP).
He said UPND had a different approach and would structure its messages to the people on fostering development and that once in government, it would not focus on pursuing former leaders.
“For now, PF is in Government and MMD is out of Government. UPND is the only party to come in during the next elections. We shall focus on telling people how we intend to foster development.?“We are the only party that has a programme of what people want in terms of health, education and other issues. Let’s build UPND together because it is the party of your choice,” Mr Hichilema said.
He said it was not easy to run an opposition party with 29 members of Parliament (MPs) but added that ‘ the sky is the limit.’?Mr Hichilema also urged the PF Government to quickly deliver a new Constitution because the bulk of the work has already been done.
The opposition leader said the ground work had already been laid in the Mwanakatwe and Mung’omba Constitution review commissions.
He said social and economic rights should be enshrined in the new Constitution as most people in Zambia were poor and had attested to that during submissions of the previous commissions.
Mr Hichilema said the new Constitution should also have a 50 per cent plus-one vote to guarantee majority rule.
On street vendors, Mr Hichilema urged the PF Government not to ‘endorse’ vendors to operate from streets, which had no public convenience and refuse disposal facilities.?“Many of our relatives are currently trading on the streets to earn a living but what we are saying is that they should trade in a favourable environment where there are toilets and safety of customers,” Mr Hichilema said.
On the proposed increment of the retirement age to 65 from 55, Mr Hichilema said the suggestion should not be implemented because young people and women would fail to get jobs.
RESIDENTS of Mupambe Township in Mufulira have sued Mulonga Water and Sewerage Company (MWSC) for allegedly supplying contaminated water.
About 2,200 cases of typhoid have been recorded since the disease broke out three weeks ago in the township, which has more than 3,200 residents.?
The residents have sued through Nkana Chambers for negligence and breach of duty.?In a statement of claim in the Kitwe High Court, John Mwila and 19 others have sued the water utility company as the defendant in the matter for allegedly supplying contaminated water.?
The plaintiffs alleged that between October and December last year, MWSC improperly and negligently omitted to seal leakages on water and sewerage pipes.?
They alleged that as a result of the negligence, the water from the sewer pipe sipped into the pipe carrying drinking water, thereby making water to Mupambe Township unclean and foil.
“ The water from the sewer pipe sipped into the pipe carrying water, thereby making the supplied water to Mupambe community unclean and foil,” read the statement of claim in part.
The plaintiffs said as a result of the company’s negligence, they have suffered injuries, severe stomach pains, diarrhoea, high fever, vomiting and gastroenteritis.?
They stated that the water utility company was expected to supply water which was pure and free of any impurities.?As a result of the negligence and breach of duty, they said, loss and damages were caused to them by the company, their servants or agents.?
They are claiming damages for the sustained injuries in respect of the nuisance.?
The plaintiffs are further seeking exemplary and punitive damages for the injuries caused by the water utility company.
There have been numerous post-September 2011 election accusations of tribalism against the new PF-lead Zambian leadership. This arises of course from the choice of appointees that the Office of the President has made (and continues to make). The continuing debate surrounding the Barotseland Agreement of 1964 appears to add fuel to this hot discussion. Irresponsible people in the opposition continue to delude themselves that they can make political mileage of these two undoubtedly related issues. The current Zambian leadership have so far responded responsibly and as best they can by providing an avenue for discussion for the later item, releasing all persons imprisoned during the 2011 Mongu riots and establishing a Commission of Inquiry that will eventually deliver justice to the families of those killed or injured during the same. Those who subscribe to the notion that the Barotseland Agreement issue will be resolved in the short term and even less the intermediate term (did someone say 90 days?) must reassess their road map on the way forward. And of course their sanity.
For the sake of those with short attention spans (only) two pertinent facts will be presented in their veritable factual (and therefore inherently hard to swallow) context. The first of these unpalatable facts is that there is absolutely no constitutional constraint for the Office of the President to appoint a leadership team based on “balanced” tribal origin. The founding fathers (principally Dr. Kenneth Kaunda) and mothers of this nation reckoned it was necessary in those times to provide a sense of equitable distribution of the “spoils” captured from the retreating British colonialist. There were indeed very few schooled people in that era and if educational qualification was used as the criteria of appointment, the Zambian civil service would have comprised of a pitiful handful of (read as less than 20) totally inexperienced people to provide some form of governance to a political entity of daunting geographical dimensions littered with at least five major tribal and cultural groupings made up of 72 or so distinguishable sub-groupings. Given that we (47 years latter) have substantially more educated people amongst us, the relevant question that demands an answer is whether it is reasonable to continue being fixated in a mental state (tribal distribution of appointments) that views our country as a conquest that must be looted or indeed plundered.
It is abundantly clear that the era of the political freedom fighter has come and gone. The economic freedom fighter whose hour has in all its fullness arrived will require more than sticks, stones and a fearsome visage to make the enemy (hunger, poverty, disease, ignorance) scamper for the cover of the nearest bush. The African countries who have recognised the role of the political freedom fighter and moved away from over-placating that stage of their growth have without exception progressed further economically and in other aspects.
The second brutal (historical) fact is that it made very simple administrative common sense for the British to hand over the then Northern Rhodesian territory in its entirety as a single unit and let any tribal or ethnic concerns sort themselves out. By the late fifties Whitehall had no doubts about three things – the protectorates of sub-Saharan Africa were an economic nuisance, an administrative waste of foreign policy and provided absolutely no strategic military advantage. The golden window of opportunity for the establishment of an independent nation or kingdom of Barotseland within what was Northern Rhodesia was in the five years between 1961 and 1966. Any consideration of Barotseland other than it being a part of Zambia after that window of opportunity is in the studied opinion of some an exercise in warm cuddly nostalgia and a massaging of tribal ego (begging the question – who doesn’t have fond memories of their home or the good old days?). Additional extensions of what is considered Barotseland into the Caprivi Strip, eastern Angola, a smaller part of Congo and how far eastward it extended into Zambia would have undoubtedly left the entire region to this day reeling in border disputes.
We of course are privileged to still have in our midst persons who were present when Zambia came into being in the corridors of Westminster. I am sure if there was or is anything of particular interest to add to the Barotseland Agreement debate they will in the first place provide the relevant facts to the existing commission. There are some who harbour the opinion that the silence of the relevant founding persons itself speaks volumes on the matter. Then there are others who think this silence is golden.
The Challenges and the Opportunities.
The geographical dimensions, the sheer size of Zambia make meaningful and sustainable development difficult in many remote parts, Western province being no exception. Consider that Kafue National Park itself is about as large as England. As far as continental position is concerned, the landlocked nature of Zambia render it fairly “rural” in comparison to the countries that have a sea or ocean front where trade and sea-based commerce has been flourishing for centuries.
The regionally central position of the country has not been sufficiently capitalised in terms of transport infrastructure. Zambia’s potential as a unspoilt tourist centre goes begging as a direct result of piece-meal and half-hearted infrastructure investment that have been restricted to periods immediately preceding major elections. The three international airports (located Lusaka, Ndola and Livingstone) remain the size of air-strips in comparison to counterparts in other countries, maintaining more or less the same size they had in the sixties and seventies (correct me if I am wrong please). The international bus terminal in Lusaka is a crying shame, the home of the homeless and stranded travellers, a filthy mess, a health hazard with harassment as the order of the day. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that under the current system any development will be easier to place in the existing centres of communication (principally along the line of rail) before it trickles outward to less developed remote areas – it is the natural course of matters.. The existing railway service is itself at the edge of collapse.
The challenges Zambia faces represent amazing opportunities. Instead of waiting for government, the people must avail themselves to the alternative of a bright future. Zambia still remains one of the most difficult countries in the world to set up a business in (for both locals and foreigners) despite a recent slight improvement in the global rankings. This is part of the adventure and can be sorted out in time with the appropriate political will.
The day that government no longer remains the largest employer in the country is the day that Zambia can be considered to have made a significant milestone towards attaining economic freedom and moved away from unsustainable dependence on a central government system. On that day, political appointments will (hopefully) be of little consequence because the economic development of the nation will be very squarely in the hands of the people. The number of those who not merely believe but know that federating the provinces is the best answer to allegations of tribalism and the greater part of the solution to the Barotseland Agreement debate has reached critical mass. With a federal system, the development of a region or province will fall very squarely in the hands of the people themselves and they will be in no position to blame anyone but themselves. A leaner, meaner civil service backed by a kick-behind private sector is clearly the way forward.
(The author wishes the record to show he is not Bemba by birth or ancestry and is not averse to the possibility of parenting off-spring in that direction – in other words, let’s not take ourselves too seriously).
Zambia’s tourism minister has offered to bungee-jump with the Australian woman who plunged into the Zambezi River after her cord snapped in two.
Given Lubinda has already leapt off the Victoria Falls bridge in an effort to restore Zambia’s battered image.
Video footage showing the 22-year-old Erin Langworthy plunging head-first into the rapids became an overnight online sensation.
Tourism is a major money-spinner in Zambia, creating many much-needed jobs.
The minister made his bungee jump on Sunday – to quell safety fears after the news of the snapped bungee rope spread around the world.
He said he had heard that Ms Langworthy was planning to return to Zambia.
The Australian, who jumped on New Year’s Eve, escaped with just cuts, bruises and a broken collarbone after surviving the fall of 110 metres (360ft).
She had to swim with her feet tied together to the Zimbabwean side of the water, and had to free the cord when it got caught on rocks.
Mr Lubinda, who says he is approaching 50, told the BBC’s Focus on Africa programme it was his responsibility as tourism minister to be the “guinea pig” and “take the risk” in order to restore people’s faith in bungee-jumping and in Zambia’s tourism.
“I am hoping that all those who watched a middle-aged person jumping down the bridge and coming back up smiling will be encouraged not just to jump but also to come and visit Zambia,” Mr Lubinda said.
Mr Lubinda, who has bungee-jumped once before, said he was very confident that the rope would not snap.
He also pointed out that, as far as the records show, Ms Langworthy’s accident is the only one out of the estimated 150,000 jumps since the sport was introduced to Zambia 17 years ago.
The minister said his second jump was a thrilling experience.
“Standing at the edge of the bridge and looking down and seeing nothing but water and rocks – and knowing that the only thing that holds you is a bungee rope – is extremely fearful,” he said.
“But just the experience of going down, and knowing you have the courage to do it, is itself a thrill.”
Zambia is home to Victoria Falls, one of the natural wonders of the world, and is an increasingly popular safari destination.
Former Vice President, George Kunda has insisted that his successor Guy Scott does not qualify to hold the office. Mr. Kunda therefore advised President Sata to save the country the agony of going to court by relieving Dr Scott of the position.
Mr Kunda said that there was no way a country could have a vice president who cannot act as president when the president is out of the country. Mr. Kunda went on to say that no amount of intimidation will stop the MMD from pointing out and question governance lapses.
And Foreign Affairs Minister Chishimba Kambwili has expressed profound disappointment at former vice President George Kunda’s intentions to petition the appointment of Dr.Guy Scott as Zambia’s vice President.
Reacting to Mr Kunda’s threats that the MMD would petition Dr.Scott’s appointment as vice President, Mr Kambwili wondered what the former vice President wanted to achieve.
Mr Kambwili said that Mr Kunda who once served as the legal advisor to government in his capacity as Attorney General and Minister of Justice, should be well vested with the constitution of Zambia.
Mr Kambwili stressed that it was unfair for a former Vice President to doubt the eligibility of Dr Scott to hold the position of vice President when the latter had lived all his life in Zambia.
He charged that Mr Kunda was exhibiting high levels of dishonesty following his many public utterances lately.
He said the constitution was very clear on who qualifies to hold the position of vice president and president respectively hence Mr Kunda should be well vested with the law since he is a lawyer by profession.
Mr Kambwili said Dr Scott has lived his entire life in Zambia and has been heavily involved in Zambian politics for many years.
Meanwhile, the Foundation for Democratic Process (FODEP) has urged the technical committee to put to rest the issue of parentage for people aspiring for the office of President.
FODEP president Alex Ng’oma has told QFM NEWS that the country needs to move forward by allowing all citizens irrespective of their parental roots to take part in national governance at all levels without any form of discrimination.
Dr Ng’oma said that the issue of Vice president Guy Scott’s parentage and whether he qualifies to hold the office of vice president is a waste of time because Dr Scott has been in Zambia from the time he was born.
He said Zambia needs to learn from progressive countries such as the United States of America and embrace all the citizens in politics saying this is key in enhancing the country’s democracy.
Some players from the Zambia National soccer team in training
Zambia and South Africa drew 1-1 in a friendly played at Rand Stadium in Johannesburg this afternoon.
Defender Stophila Sunzu of TP Mazembe in DR Congo scored the opener before South Africa equalized in the second half.
The friendly was the two sides first meeting since January 20, 2009 when South Africa beat Zambia 1-0 at Atteridgeville outside Pretoria.
Zambia now face Namibia this Saturday in what is expected to be their final friendly game before heading to Equatorial Guinea next Tuesday.
Meanwhile, ex-Chipolopolo midfielder Gift Kampamba has predicted a tough Africa Cup outing for Zambia.
Zambia will begin their Africa Cup campaign with seemingly tricky Group A encounter against Senegal on January 21.
Kampamba, who featured at the 2002 Africa Cup in Mali, said it won’t be easy for Zambia to progress from Group A which has also contains Libya and co-hosts Equatorial Guinea.
“I can’t say Zambia will reach the quarterfinals. Reaching the last eight is a far-fetched dream,” said Kampamba.
He described the current national team as unpredictable.
However, the former Rostov, Mamelodi Sundowns and Nkana midfielder said Chipolopolo are a very unpredictable team despite his reservations about Zambia’s Africa chances.
“Let the players motivate themselves, I know many foreign based players have got the heart to play for the nation,” Kampamba said.
The United Party for National Development (UPND) has cautioned Republican President Michael Sata against finding people being investigated for corrupt activities guilty even before they are tried in the courts of law.
UPND deputy spokesperson Cornelius Mweetwa tells QFM that the President seems to be leading the investigative wings on how the cases involving former MMD leaders should be handled.
Mr. Mweetwa says from what the President is reported to have said upon arrival from South Africa were he had gone to attend the ANC centenary celebrations, it is doubtful whether people being probed for corruption will have a fair trial.
He notes that President Sata should lead by example in upholding the rule of law by allowing the law to take its course whenever issues of corruption are being dealt with.
Mr. Mweetwa has since doubted whether people like Dora Siliya who is being investigated in connection with the sale of Zamtel will have a fair trial.
Yesterday President Sata said that he would soon swear in Mr Nchito who would “go for them, especially that he knew them well.” ?“Very soon, I am going to swear in Mutembo Nchtito who knows them better. He will sort them out including Dora Siliya. She must recover quickly,” Mr Sata said.?
By Godwin M Kaluwe President: Barotseland Peace Foundation
By 1963 the territory of Barotseland protectorate which is now called Western Province in Zambia, was administered jointly, with Northern Rhodesia protectorate by, and for British convenience for various economic and political reasons, in which case a protectorate within another protectorate occurred. Barotseland’s quest for independence was on record since 1911. It was inevitable that both nations would be free, the question was when and how so, two free and separate states named Zambia and Barotseland or one Zambia one nation. Through the BA64 one Zambia and one nation would prevail.
As nationalism mounted pressure on the British colonial government in the 1960s, independence became a reality. Prime Minister David Kenneth Kaunda was well advised to lobby the support of Barotseland even though the BRE had long withdrawn from some parts of southern province, Caprivi Strip of Namibia, Eastern Angola, Victoria falls of Zimbabwe, Kasane of Botswana, NW Province, Central province and Copper-belt province. According to honorable Sikota Wina, this was a smart move in that it helped the newly formed government of Zambia reclaim the mining rights of copper-belt from the BSAC which would have continued for 99 years since the Lockner treaties with Lewanika signed in the late 1800s. “Mr. Wina said the treaties provided that the Lozi King Lewanika had been granted protectorate status by Britain through the Lochner Concession of June 1890, in return for giving Cecil Rhodes’ BSAC monopoly over mining and commercial rights in his territory. He said this monopoly could have been earning BSAC fat royalties up to 1986.” (Kasuba Mulenga Report, 2010)
Barotseland was not really obliged to be independent along with Northern Rhodesia. In fact it was the desire of the BRE to be independent as Barotseland, but the British at the time thought Barotseland had no sufficient economy and industrial capacity to stand alone without copper-belt. In order for the two separate nations to be awarded independence by the British, however, it would require a special agreement to replace Lewanika’s old treaties and concessions. The BA64 became that agreement. With that vehicle in place, and only then did the British feel comfortable to surrender Barotseland into the hands of a new form of government, also expected to continue facilitating Barotseland with her autonomy within Zambia to be, this time a nation within a nation, as was the case with a protectorate within a protectorate. KK assured the Litunga and the people of Barotseland to trust him and never to worry as this arrangement was not new.
Dr. Kenneth Kaunda, then Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia later addressed the Barotse National Council on 6th August 1964 concerning the Barotseland Agreement which was to come into force on 24th October 1964.
“….It is the government’s full intention that the Barotseland Agreement will be honored fully after independence…. The government has no wish to interfere with the day to day running of the internal affairs of Barotseland. This is the responsibility of the Barotse government and the intention of the Central Government will be no more than to give the Barotse Government its maximum assistance and co-operation. …The customary rights in Barotseland will remain with the Litunga, National Council and the District heads of Kutas. He added that “the government is satisfied that government requirements for land for development projects in Barotseland will receive the active co-operation of the Barotse government, this is all the Central Government is asking for…..” (Nyambe, 2010)
Despite this assurance from KK the Litunga did not believe that KK was sincere. As a result the BNC wrote an appeal to the British government requesting to have separate independence, of which the British government was reluctant to do as it would cost them more money to deliver. Thus, encouraging Barotseland to make a deal with Northern Rhodesia was perceived cheaper for the British government, beneficial to Northern Rhodesia as it would close the copper-belt mining ownership rights issue once and for all, and would also leave Barotseland attached to Zambia like Zanzibar with Tanzania, or arrange to be like Lesotho and Swaziland in South Africa.
[pullquote]Barotseland was not really obliged to be independent along with Northern Rhodesia. In fact it was the desire of the BRE to be independent as Barotseland, but the British at the time thought Barotseland had no sufficient economy and industrial capacity to stand alone without copper-belt. [/pullquote]
Through the efforts and influence of the Lozi elite such as Arthur Wina, Mundia Nalumino, Sipalo and others, the message of one Zambia one nation was preached as gospel truth and salvation for Barotseland and her future development. Hence many people voted for one Zambia one nation in the infamous referendum that followed later. Even though today some reliable sources allege that the elections were rigid forcing Barotseland to become part of Zambia. Whatever the case was, it was accepted and we gladly became Zambians. Soon after independence KK and his government sort to abrogate the BA64 in 1969 fulfilling the Litunga, Mwanawina Lewanika’s fears. When the local people in Barotseland protested KK declared state of emergency and arrested several activists without trial. Since KK’s time every effort to address the BA64 has met with manipulation, indifference, threats even killings by successive governments respectively.
[pullquote]Does the government understand how important Mongu/Kalabo road is to the people of Barotseland, politics aside? Are the people of Barotseland asking too much?[/pullquote]
The BA64 has never been handled properly. People on blogs insult each other for nothing. Only Love, Peace and Respect for each other will help aide the process for resolving this impasse. It is now more than 47 years since Zambia became independent, but development in Barotseland is still a dream not yet fulfilled. How long will the people of Barotseland wait for the promise of development to come? Does the government understand how important Mongu/Kalabo road is to the people of Barotseland, politics aside? Are the people of Barotseland asking too much?
The people of Barotseland now hope that the government of President Michael Sata which they voted in trust, which has so far demonstrated civility, consideration and willingness to dialogue, will bring this matter to a peaceful conclusion through the commission of inquiry. The whole world is watching to see how Zambian presidents keep their promises. The abrogation of the BA64 is the first born of Zambian corruption. The International community will respect Mr. Sata even more should he be transparent on this issue, unlike his predecessors. On the other hand, if KK who is still alive could advise Mr. Sata and the nation to do the right thing, KK would die with great honor.
Airtel customer service director Mato Shimabale (l) and Airtel marketing
The Zambia Information & Communications Technology Authority (ZICTA) has discovered that Airtel Zambia has an automated call blocking system in its call centre which bars all numbers that call the call centre more than three times in any particular day.
ZICTA acting Public Relations Manager Chisha Shimungala in a statement released to QFM today says this practice is an affront to consumers’ rights and interests as it denies them the right to make a complaint and deprives them of the privilege to contact their service provider when necessary.
Mrs Shimungala explains that Section 67 of the Information & Communication Technologies (ICT) Act Number 15 of 2009 provides that all service providers must deal reasonably with their consumers and address consumer complaints.
She says the failure to adhere to the above provision constitutes an offence and any service providers found wanting is liable to prosecution.
Mrs Shimungala ZICTA has since directed Airtel to immediately cease the practice failure to which the Authority will invoke provisions of the Act and take stern action against the operator.
She adds that in the same vein, the other two mobile phone operators are urged to refrain from the practice.
She has further advised consumers and the general public to report to ZICTA non adherence to the directive by the concerned operator.
United Party for National Development (UPND) president Hakainde Hichilema
Untied Party for National Development (UPND) leader Hakainde Hichilema has challenged President Michael Sata to clarify reports that the PF government has already single sourced a company to buy Zamtel following government’s decision to reverse its sale to LAP Green.
Mr. Hichilema said that if such reports prove to be true, then President Sata’s statements that he is allergic to corruption are unfortunate.
He said that the PF has embraced people who had been tagged corrupt, and yet claim to be allergic to corruption.
Mr. Hichilema further stated that the Zambian people voted for the PF to change the way the government was being run by the MMD, but that nothing has changed under the PF government.
He wondered why the PF had failed to fulfill the campaign promises it made to the Zambian people in the run up to the 2011 elections.
And the UPND leader has accused the Patriotic Front of being vindictive in the way it is fighting corruption.
Mr. Hichilema said that the fight against corruption should not be seen to be targeted at a certain group of people but should be widespread.
He has however welcomed the PF government’s investigation of former government leaders in the MMD, while calling for fair justice.
Mr. Hichilema was speaking this morning on Livingstone’s Zambezi FM monitored by QFM radio.
This brilliant crime saga sees Christian Bale returning after eight years as the caped crusader who saves Gotham City from its terrorizing villains. “The Dark Knight Rises” is director Christopher Nolan’s conclusion to his “Batman” series and boasts an impressive cast which includes Anne Hathaway and Tom Hardy.
(Release Date: July 20).
The Avengers
Yet another Marvel-comics flick that sees not just one superhero, but four who join forces in what is an epic battle against the bad guys. This never seen before team of Iron Man, Thor, Captain America and the Hulk have already heightened our expectations, making it one of the most-anticipated movies of 2012. (Release date: May 4)
Men in Black III
The third installment of the sci-fi action comedy will see Will Smith traveling back in time to save the planet and Agent K, played by Tommy Lee Jones. MIB III is directed by Barry Sonnenfeld, with a young agent K played by Josh Brolin.
(Release Date: May 25)
Snow White and the Huntsman
A fairytale with a twist that sees Kristen Stewart playing the lead as Snow White, who after a bloody battle defeats the evil queen played by Charlize Theron. Rupert Sander’s verison of this Disney classic is stylistically pleasing, making it one of the best fantasy movies to look forward to this year.
(Release Date: June 1)
UnderWorld: Awakening
Watch Kate Beckinsale make a welcome return to her lead role as Selene, who must battle an array of humans and a genetically-enhanced Lycan in this vampire-werewolf flick.
(Release Date: Jan. 20)
The Amazing Spider-Man
Just when you thought the super-hero theme was over and done with, here comes the “Amazing Spider-Man” which features a skinny Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker. Fans of this franchise will see Spidey swing in 3-D this time making it one of the most eagerly awaited films this year.
(Release Date: July 3)
Safe House
A young CIA agent is tasked with looking after a fugitive in a safe house. But when the safe house is attacked, he finds himself on the run with his charge.
Former Commerce Minister Felix Mutati has denied purchasing a plot worth K2.8 billion and asked the Times of Zambia to seek more details on the matter before he could clarify.
“Try to get more details for me because I am not aware about that plot or farm. Get details and then I can comment,” Mr Mutati said.
Mr Mutati was reacting to President Micheal Sata’s accusation. President Sata disclosed that Mr. Mutati had acquired land worth K2.8 billion and declared that the “real” fight against corruption has just started.
The president said more corrupt activities committed during the MMD reign would be exposed, especially after Mutembo Nchito is sworn-in as Director of Public Prosecution (DPP).
Speaking on arrival at Kenneth Kaunda International Airport from South Africa yesterday, the president said the Government had no reason to relent and wondered how a former Cabinet minister could afford to procure land at K2.8 billion.
President Sata said he would soon swear in Mr Nchito who would “go for them, especially that he knew them well.”?“Very soon, I am going to swear in Mutembo Nchtito who knows them better.
He will sort them out including Dora Siliya. She must recover quickly,” Mr Sata said.
President Sata said the recent recovery of money underground provided a fertile ground for more intense investigations.
“We have not started. If they start burying money, we are going to dig all the money they have buried down. How can you expect a former minister of Commerce to buy a plot for K2.8 billion? Don’t worry this is just the beginning,” President Sata said.
