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.
Ensuring Ethical Treatment and Security in Zambian Correctional Facilities
We often focus too much on the behavior of the sheep and neglect the role of the shepherds. Think of the correctional system as a field where the sheep represent the inmates, and the shepherds are the correctional officers. While it’s easy to concentrate on the behavior of the sheep—how they graze, stray, or interact—it’s crucial to remember that the shepherds play a vital role in shaping their environment and guiding their behavior.
Just as a shepherd’s methods can determine whether the sheep are led to pasture or into danger, the behavior of correctional officers influences the transformation process of inmates. If the shepherd is harsh, inconsistent, or neglectful, the sheep may become skittish and unmanageable. Conversely, a shepherd who is fair, understanding, and attentive helps guide the sheep towards a better path.
Similarly, in a correctional setting, officers who exhibit ethical behavior, fairness, and empathy can foster a positive environment that encourages inmates’ transformation and rehabilitation. Their conduct can either support or undermine the process of change, making their role as crucial as the inmates’ willingness to change themselves.
Correctional officers hold significant power and responsibility, which necessitates the highest ethical standards. Their conduct with inmates must be rooted in professionalism and integrity, safeguarding the rights and dignity of individuals under their supervision. This article examines the plausible code of conduct for correctional officers, the treatment and rights of inmates, and the challenges faced by the Zambian correctional system, particularly concerning officer misconduct and systemic failures.
Ethical Standards and Professionalism
Correctional officers are entrusted with maintaining order, security, and rehabilitation within correctional facilities. Their behavior should reflect:
1. Integrity and Honesty: Officers must act truthfully and transparently, upholding the law and correctional policies without deviation.
2. Respect and Fairness: Every inmate must be treated with respect and fairness, irrespective of their crimes, ensuring that their basic human rights are protected.
3. Confidentiality: Officers must protect the confidentiality of inmates’ personal information, sharing it only when necessary for legal or professional reasons.
4. Accountability: Officers should be accountable for their actions, accepting responsibility for their conduct and decisions.
5. Impartiality: Personal biases should never influence the treatment of inmates. Officers must remain neutral and impartial in all interactions.
Inmate Treatment and Rights
A correctional facility is not a hotel, but it should not be a depiction of hell on earth. From the author’s observations, authorities have strived to ensure that inmate treatment and rights are respected. Indeed, inmates have rights that must be upheld throughout their incarceration. These include:
1. Right to Safety: Inmates should be protected from physical, emotional, and sexual abuse.( Case in point- mashat/officer chipimo rumors) Facilities must ensure a safe environment.
2. Right to Basic Needs: Access to adequate food, water, shelter, and medical care is a fundamental right.
3. Right to Rehabilitation: Inmates should have access to educational, vocational, and rehabilitation programs to aid their reintegration into society.
4. Right to Fair Treatment: Discrimination based on race, gender, religion, or any other factor is unacceptable.
5. Right to Communication: Inmates should be allowed to maintain contact with family and legal representatives.
Challenges in Zambian Correctional Facilities
The Zambian correctional system faces several challenges in meeting its objectives:
1. Officer Misconduct: Instances of unethical behavior, such as inappropriate relationships with inmates, undermine the integrity of the correctional system and exploit vulnerable individuals.
2. Resource Limitations: Inadequate funding and resources can lead to overcrowded facilities, insufficient healthcare, and limited rehabilitation programs.
3. Promiscuity and Unethical Conduct: The prevalence of promiscuity among officers exacerbates issues of misconduct( case in point officer P Sikanyika/R Mwango, P Sikanyika / M Hamunyemba, ) compromising the safety and rehabilitation of inmates.
Unethical behavior has been reported during officer recruitment and training, where young female recruits are given contraceptives during training to avoid pregnancy by their instructors. This compromises training objectives and subjects female correctional officers to traumatic experiences, which, regrettably, are considered normal within the system.
Ensuring Ethical Conduct and Effective Rehabilitation
To maximize correctional objectives and reintegrate rehabilitated offenders into society, the following measures are essential:
1. Strict Enforcement of Ethical Standards: Implementing and strictly enforcing a robust code of conduct for officers, with severe consequences for violations, is crucial. While human resource guidelines and other policies might be in place, the absence of a marriage policy and reliance on the marriage act leaves room for loopholes that damage the family unit of some officers.
2. Training and Education: Continuous training on ethical behavior, human rights, and professional conduct should be mandatory for all correctional officers.
3. Adequate Resources: Ensuring sufficient funding and resources to address overcrowding, healthcare, and rehabilitation needs is essential. Zambia’s correctional system needs to be prioritized in terms of funding if sustainable rehabilitation is to be realized.
4. Monitoring and Accountability: Establishing independent oversight bodies to monitor the conduct of officers and the treatment of inmates.
5. Support Systems: Providing psychological support and counseling for both officers and inmates to address mental health issues and reduce misconduct.
The role of correctional officers is pivotal in the justice system, and their adherence to ethical standards is essential for the credibility of correctional facilities. By respecting the rights of inmates and maintaining professionalism, the Zambian correctional system can better achieve its objectives of rehabilitation and reintegration, ensuring a safer and more just society.
About the Author
Eng. Chaliafya Katungula is an advocate for ethical practices, forestry, engineering, and community mobilization, with a keen interest in improving the treatment of inmates and addressing the challenges faced by correctional institutions in Zambia. He has firsthand experience witnessing unethical behavior by correctional officers while residing as an “unchained inmate” at Kansenshi Prison Camp House No. Ksq3, Ndola, from 2015 to 2021. If correctional officers are unethical with each other, such as through extramarital affairs, there is no guarantee that inmates, who have limited choices, can be safeguarded. Similarly, if one considers financial plunder alone without addressing resource abuse, they might miss that some officers may exploit inmates for personal gain, such as using correctional manpower for their private farm holdings without compensation—a topic for another discussion.
“There is a reason why wild dogs have no shepherds- their ways are wildly on the other hand human behaviour can be reshaped, rebuilt and transformation through rehabilitation programs is possible with the right minded people in the process”
I have just read a statement attributed to you in which you are explaining why you entered a consent judgement with Marshal Muchende, the Solicitor General of the Republic of Zambia, who, according to what you recently told us, is corrupt.
As you know, I was among those who had wondered why you consented to the withdrawal of the case in which Marshal had sued you for defamation when, according to what you told us, you had evidence of his corruption. I stated that if Marshal wanted, for whatever reason, to discontinue the suit, he could have done so without your consent by simply filing a notice of discontinuance. On your part, you could have simply insisted that you had evidence to prove your assertions and left it to him to discontinue the matter on his own volition. This way, the public would have concluded that the defamation case that Marshal brought against you was nothing more than an intimidation tactic. By agreeing to end the matter through a dubious and pointless consent judgement, you called into question your own character. In the absence of a clear explanation from you, I concluded that the implication of what you had done is that you:
(i) did not have evidence of corruption against Marshal and were simply being malicious;
(ii) were talked out of the issue of exposing Marshal’s corruption by Marshal himself, President Hichilema, or/and other senior leaders who may have felt that a court trial would expose the extent of the rot and embarrass the President, government, or the ruling party;
(iii) had been intimidated by President Hichilema who has shown extraordinary determination to protect the Solicitor General; or
(iv) have finally been compromised and co-opted into the corrupt network so that you, too, can eat with the group.
I felt that whatever it was out of these four possibilities that informed your decision, none reflects very well on your reputation, as the outcome presents you as an unprincipled person of a shady character and a coward who trembles in the face of intimidation or pressure. I am glad that you have now come out to put it on record that your decision to embrace a Solicitor General you told Zambians is corrupt had absolutely nothing to do with public interest – the platform on which I thought you had originally stood – but was motivated by private considerations including your desire to make “personal amends and assurances” to the same State official whom you now ‘respect’. To avoid misinterpreting what you said in the statement, it is worth quoting your remarks in full:
“STATEMENT ON SETTLEMENT WITH MR MARSHAL MUCHENDE SC
I have received numerous questions about the consent to discontinue the defamation suit between the Solicitor General, Mr Marshal Muchende, SC and myself, particularly, 1) If I was intimidated by State House to discontinue the matter, and 2) If the settlement amounts to an admission of wrong doing on the part of Mr Muchende.
I would like to state categorically that State House has not been involved in either our dispute or our out of court settlement which culminated in the Consent Judgment to discontinue the matter.
It can neither be said that I was coerced into agreeing to terminate the dispute especially that I was not the Plaintiff in the matter nor can it be said that the settlement amounts to admission of guilt on the part of the Solicitor General.
The decision to settle the matter was arrived at voluntarily, magnanimously and conscientiously by the Solicitor General and myself under the aegis of our respective lawyers and indeed our collective interest, mutual respect for each other, as well as my personal amends and assurances.
It is my sincere hope that the pain and inconvenience that this unfortunate episode has caused to both of us can be put behind us. I wish the Solicitor General well.”
O’Brien Kaaba (Dr)”
I note from this statement that you have neither withdrawn your earlier declaration that the Solicitor General is corrupt nor retracted your assurance that you have evidence in support of your assertion, evidence which you had pledged to present before the court after Marshal, on whose behalf you are now even speaking, sued you for alleged defamation. I further note the revelation that you have not been intimidated by anyone and your newly developed ‘mutual respect’ for the same person you told us is corrupt only a few days ago.
Arising from this context, I have a few questions that are informed by public interest, a subject that is entirely missing from your statement. These questions relate to what you intend to do with the evidence you claimed to have marshalled of Marshal’s corruption – the same evidence in your possession that you had planned to use to ‘demonstrate before court the truthfulness of your assertion’ that he is corrupt. Are you going to use this evidence to lay a complaint of corruption against the Solicitor General before the Acting Director General of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) Monica Mwansa? If the answer to this question is YES, is it possible to let the public know when you plan to do so, so that we, members of the public, may subsequently urge the ACC to treat the matter with the urgency it deserves, given the sensitivity of the public position occupied by the person you would be reporting for corruption? In addition, if the ACC fails to act on your complaint, are you willing to file a complaint of criminal behaviour against the Solicitor General before the Magistrates’ Court so that Marshal can be summoned to explain why he was, in your words, receiving kickbacks?
If, for whatever reason, you have no plans of reporting the Solicitor General to law enforcement agencies or to lay a complaint against him before the Magistrates’ Court, are you willing to share the evidence of his corruption which you had pledged to present before court so that those interested can use the same evidence to report him to the ACC and, if need be, institute private prosecution against him? As you know, one can only report a corrupt activity to the ACC or file a complaint before the Magistrates’ Court if they have evidence showing that a person has committed a crime. I would imagine that part of what you mean when you say you are wishing the Solicitor General well includes seeing to it that the man you have told us is corrupt clears his name before a competent tribunal. The propositions I am suggesting would not only help achieve this desire but also promote justice. As it stands, no one can be blamed for referring to Marshal as corrupt based solely on what you told us – a statement you have not withdrawn.
In case you are wondering why I am focusing my energies on you, not the person you have told us is corrupt, it is because I have absolutely no faith in the ability of the Solicitor General to resign on his own accord nor in the capacity of the President of Zambia, Hakainde Hichilema, to dismiss him from public office based on what you said and other considerations. As you very well know, the ACC has confirmed that they have, since last year, been investigating the same person you have told us is corrupt on a separate matter of suspected corruption involving US$500, 000.
In a truly functioning country with a president who has the political will to fight corruption, such a public officer would have been suspended to prevent them from interfering with the course of investigations and to give or preserve some element of credibility to the investigations. In a truly functioning country with public officers who respect the people, consider public service posts as positions of trust, and possess ethical values – such as moral force of character, integrity, honesty, and the selfless pursuit of the public good, and not the selfish striving for personal gain – the affected public officer could have also resigned on their own for the same reasons. Unfortunately, Zambia is today woefully lacking on both scores, suffering from the calamity of the absence of this kind of leadership. We have no president with the courage and decisiveness that is required to drop senior government officials who are accused of, or involved in, corruption. Neither do we have a Solicitor General who, because he is being investigated for corruption, can resign on moral considerations.
As a result, we, members of the public, are at the mercy of the evidence of Marshal’s corruption that is in your possession, if we are to stop the continuation of this travesty of having a person you have told us is corrupt occupying such an important office of our Republic. Unless yours was a fight for inclusion at the looting table rather than a genuine commitment to anti-corruption; unless you are out to cover Marshal’s corruption (here, I am referring solely to the corruption you told us he was involved in), I am hopeful that you will use the evidence in your custody to report the Solicitor General to the ACC for corruption, failure to which you will approach the Magistrates’ Court for redress. Corruption stinks. In fact, it kills. I appeal to you to do everything necessary to help Marshal clear his name or bring him to justice. For the reality is that unless you act, you will, in effect, be seen to be covering corruption.
Lastly, I read that the former ACC Director General, Thom Shamakamba, has sued you for defamation based on the statement you made that he, too, is corrupt. I am sure you have the evidence even in this case, and I look forward with interest to the commencement of trial. It is very important to use your case against Shamakamba to send a strong message about the cost of engaging in corruption to the self-serving elite class at the heart of public life, including those who occupy key positions in several state institutions and are complicit in the fall from grace of Zambia, and in sustaining our state of backward poverty and extreme cultural impoverishment. As you probably are, I am outraged that we seem to have a shameless set of corruptible leaders, who are betraying Zambia to foreign commercial interests, who are pawning off the country for a few trinkets, who are accumulating through brazen theft of public resources and massive sale of Zambian land to so-called investors, and who are strutting around with self-importance when they are nothing but disposable playthings of even bigger global kleptocrats. All this is happening when poor Zambians are struggling to afford basic needs, battling with crippling power outages lasting as long as 20 consecutive hours a day, and contending with the devasting cost-of-living crisis that has been worsened by an elitist, insensitive, and out-of-touch approach to leadership, one that prioritises the needs of foreigners and the rich.
If you were neither bluffing nor taking Zambians for fools when you told us that Shamakamba is, like Marshal, corrupt, then you deserve our utmost support in your upcoming court case against him. If there is anything I can do to help, please do not hesitate to get in touch. My email address is [email protected]. I say all this devoid of any drama and out of a sincere duty of care for your reputation. As the readers know, reputation is hard to build but so easy to lose. Our country is in dire need of men and women of reputable character who are loyal to the truth – not to individuals or narrow interests – and who do not change principles based on circumstances or who they are dealing with. It would greatly disappoint many people and leave your reputation in tatters if, in addition to what you have done with Marshal, you accepted to enter another content-less consent judgement with Shamakamba, like the settlement you made with the – according to you – corrupt Solicitor General.
In case you do not know, there are many people who look up to you, some as a role model. These include the University of Zambia students whom you teach in the School of Law; the upcoming and young generation of lawyers who follow your example; the different boards on which you serve such as Laura Miti’s Alliance for Community Action and the Zambia Law Development Commission; the diplomatic representatives of foreign missions in Zambia; the journalists in both the print and broadcast media who interact with you in the sincere belief that whatever you share with them is truthful; the local civil society organisations with whom you work closely on matters of governance; and indeed members of the public who see you as contributing to a public intellectual culture and who believe that the acquisition of specialist knowledge should result in its application to causes and communities that need it most.
It is therefore very important that you do whatever is necessary to protect your reputation from harm. Any failure, on your part, to report the Solicitor General to the ACC for corruption using the evidence in your possession, or to use the same information to lay a complaint of criminal behaviour against Marshal before the courts, or to publicise the specific details that made you conclude that he is corrupt, would ruin your reputation. All those who believed in or look up to you, including the different interest groups I just mentioned, would feel greatly disappointed and never take you seriously if you left them believing that you took them for fools and were just bluffing when you said Marshal is corrupt. They will also likely feel the same way if they woke up tomorrow and discovered that you have signed another shady consent judgement with Shamakamba or retracted and apologised for your earlier statement that he too is corrupt.
If the Minerals Regulation Commission Bill is not amended, Zambia will revert to long-term policy instability and mining investment stagnation
If the Minerals Regulation Commission Bill is passed into law in its current form, the signal to the mining investment community – local and global – will be clear: Zambia is neither policy stable nor is it done with expropriating mining investors’ assets. This will drive up the perception of investment risk in Zambia, and therefore the cost of capital for every business in the country, and will deliver a fatal blow to the Government’s ambitious strategy of increasing copper production to 3 million tonnes.
Our members believe that with a handful of key changes to specific sections, the impact of this Bill could be dramatically different. A law that will deter mining investment as it is currently drafted could be one that spurs it – giving effect to the government’s strategy.
Industry calculations show that more than half of the targeted increase in annual copper production will have to come from ‘greenfield’ sites – those mineral deposits that have not yet been discovered. If this is to happen, Zambia will need to radically increase mining exploration and the investment required to fund this high-risk activity. If we are truly interested in driving investment into our economy, we must signal clearly that investors’ property rights will be respected at all costs.
Unfortunately, due to the omission of detail on the management of the mining cadastre, the prospect of forced ‘free carry’ acquisitions by the State of stakes in new ventures, and the introduction of sweeping procedural discretions including the power to usurp the universal ‘first come first serve’ license application standard, this Bill will seriously undermine property rights. Here, and in other provisions, the Bill grants unaccountable and arbitrary discretionary decision-making powers to individual regulators, which present obvious future corruption risks. This is at a time when there are already alarming and inexplicable actions by the Mining Cadastre to reallocate or carve up licenses.
The regulatory framework for mining is in need of reform, and logic dictates that all reforms should give effect to the overarching strategic goal of radically increasing production capacity. Furthermore, reforms must be transparent in stating desired outcomes so that investors can plan accordingly, and laws must be drafted precisely and clearly to achieve bureaucratic and regulatory efficiency.
It is not too late to think again. The Bill could be resuscitated and made fit for purpose with only a handful of key amendments to the law. These we have set out in writing in our various submissions to Parliament. Otherwise, the process of fixing these provisions once enacted – and once the harmful impact has been felt – will require numerous amendments to the law.
This will see Zambia reverting to its globally least stable copper mining jurisdiction status, reversing the fragile gains of the past three years.
Issued by the Association of Zambian Mineral Exploration Companies (AZMEC) and
the Zambia Chamber of Mines (ZCM)
In general terms, the concept of de-dollarization refers to the process of reducing reliance on the US dollar – the world’s reserve currency. In Zambia’s context, this means discouraging the use of dollars in domestic transactions and promoting the use of the kwacha. The process is complex, and its implementation can have both positive and negative effects on the economy. The Bank of Zambia’s proposed policy aims to promote the use of the kwacha as the sole legal tender within the country. They are on firm ground legally. While de-dollarization offers potential benefits, such as enhanced monetary policy control and reduced exchange rate risks, its implementation poses challenges. This article will delve into the advantages and disadvantages of de-dollarization, exploring successes and failures in other countries to provide valuable insight, and recommend Zambia’s path forward.
Why Bank of Zambia Wants to De-Dollarize
There is a widespread belief that the Bank of Zambia wants to de-dollarize the economy primarily due to the ineffectiveness of the monetary policy in curbing inflation, lowering interest rates, and stimulating economic growth. Despite measures such as increasing the Monetary Policy Rate (MPC) to 13.5% and raising commercial banks’ Statutory Reserve Ratio (SRR) to 26.5% from single digits, inflation has continued to rise and is now 15.4%. Dollarization is believed to be undermining the Bank’s monetary policy by making it difficult to achieve inflation targets, as dollar-denominated transactions are thought to reduce the impact of monetary measures on inflation. Furthermore, dollarization may be contributing to exchange rate volatility, making it difficult to stabilize the kwacha.
This instability has increased business and living costs and dampened private sector economic activity. Consequently, the Central Bank is seeking to de-dollarize the economy by enforcing the law on legal tender so that it regains control over monetary policy and thereby fosters economic growth. In light of the foregoing, it is surprising that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is said to be against the Bank of Zambia’s initiative when it is meant to facilitate the implementation of their favorite tool – monetary policy – as well as enforce the rule of law.
“Forced de-dollarization measures are likely to prove ineffective and could even be counterproductive,” IMF Resident Representative Eric Lautier told Bloomberg in July 2024.
Benefits of De-Dollarization
One of the key benefits of Zambia’s de-dollarization is that it will strengthen the Bank of Zambia’s ability to regulate the economy through monetary policy, allowing for more effective management of inflation and interest rates. By reducing the excessive dominance of the US dollar in the economy, the Bank of Zambia can effectively implement monetary policies to control inflation, interest rates, and regulate the money supply more effectively. This will reduce the risk of excessive money creation or contraction, better supporting economic growth, stability, and development in Zambia.
Economic sovereignty and national pride is another key reason supporters of de-dollarization cite. The argument is that a nation’s currency symbolizes its identity and pride. The Zambian kwacha serves as a potent symbol of national identity. By diminishing the dominance of the US dollar as a parallel legal tender, Zambia aims to enhance its economic sovereignty, reduce vulnerability to external economic shocks, and bolster its self-determination in monetary policy and financial decision-making. Zambia wants to avoid the situation seen in neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo and Zimbabwe, where dollar dominance has rendered their national currencies nearly obsolete or non-existent. Zambia should assert its economic self-determination through a robust and reliable kwacha.
Another potential advantage of de-dollarization is that it is expected to stabilize the exchange rate. By decreasing the demand for dollars, it is expected that fluctuations in the exchange rate, which can harm businesses and consumers through uncertainty, will also diminish. Currently, due to Zambia’s substantially dollarized economy, combined with an unstable kwacha, this has given rise to the development of a thriving speculative foreign exchange market. Zambian commercial banks hold an estimated $3.2 billion in dollar deposits from households and businesses in their foreign exchange accounts, which is believed to be used for speculative trading, contributing to erratic and unexplained exchange rate swings. The Bank of Zambia seeks to minimize these speculative activities and establish a more stable exchange rate environment.
Potential Risks of De-Dollarization
The potential loss of business confidence is one of the risks of de-dollarization. Businesses and individuals may initially resist the change for various reasons, including the perception that the measure constitutes the re-introduction of exchange controls. The dollar is often seen as a safe haven asset. If investors perceive de-dollarization as a negative signal, they may move their assets out of the country, leading to capital flight. De-dollarization also removes the option for hedging against kwacha inflation risks.
De-dollarization also poses trade and investment risks. Restricting dollar use may hinder international trade, as some businesses rely on dollars for transactions. For businesses that rely on international trade, they may face difficulties in invoicing and settling transactions in kwacha. De-dollarization may also deter foreign investors who prefer to operate in dollarized economies.
Case Studies of De-Dollarization
As the Bank of Zambia contemplates de-dollarization by mandating transactions in kwacha, it’s essential to examine the experiences of other countries that have implemented similar policies. Various nations have attempted de-dollarization with varying degrees of success. The three notable success stories are Brazil, Israel, and Angola. Brazil achieved significant de-dollarization by implementing gradual policies, financial education, and exchange rate management to reduce dollarization significantly. Israel, on the other hand, transitioned from a highly dollarized economy to a predominantly shekel-based economy through financial reforms and economic stability.
Angola implemented its de-dollarization policy in 2018, which was aimed at reducing the country’s dependence on the US dollar and promoting the use of the local currency, the kwanza. The policy was relatively successful. It increased kwanza usage from 40% to 70% of total transactions, reduced the share of foreign currency deposits in banks from 90% to around 60%, helped stabilize the foreign exchange market, and reduced the pressure on the kwanza. Inflation rates became more stable, ranging from 15% to 20% between 2020 and 2022.
In contrast, Zimbabwe attempted to de-dollarize by trying to bring back a new local currency after several years of a dollar economy. Hyperinflation and economic mismanagement led to a failed attempt at de-dollarization, resulting in further economic decline. Other countries, such as Argentina and Venezuela, have also struggled with de-dollarization efforts. Argentina, in particular, has had repeated attempts to de-dollarize, resulting in economic instability and black markets. Studying these cases can provide valuable insights for Zambia’s de-dollarization initiative.
Way Forward for Bank of Zambia
The question still remains: Should Zambia de-dollarize or not? The answer is that it should do both. Rushing the process can lead to unintended consequences, while delaying it can prolong the stranglehold on the Bank of Zambia’s monetary policy and expose the economy to dollar vulnerabilities and external shocks. A balanced strategy is necessary.
To navigate the complexities of de-dollarization and mitigate against the attendant risks, the Bank of Zambia should adopt a cautious, gradual, and phased approach to allow businesses and households time to adjust and for other supporting strategies to take effect. The Central Bank should sequence its implementation of de-dollarization. The first step in this sequence should be the development of a comprehensive marketing communications strategy. This should entail reminding the public that the kwacha is the legal tender in Zambia, and it is illegal for anybody to use any other currency to do business.
In addition, the public ought to be educated about the policy’s benefits, the risks of dollarization, and its implications. Importantly, the campaign should clearly communicate that these measures do not constitute exchange controls, addressing potential concerns, misconceptions, and propaganda by vested interests of the status quo.
In the event that the Bank of Zambia has never carried out a comprehensive study about de-dollarization and its implications, it is vital they do so now, while gradually implementing the less risky aspects of the policy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, de-dollarization presents both opportunities and challenges for Zambia. Given the complexity of this process, the Bank of Zambia must exercise extreme caution, carefully considering the unique circumstances of the Zambian economy. A gradual and informed approach is crucial, focusing on financial education, exchange rate stability, aggressive foreign reserve accumulation, and strengthening the domestic financial system. By drawing lessons from other countries’ experiences and prioritizing a data-driven understanding of Zambia’s specific conditions, the Bank of Zambia can maximize the chances of successful de-dollarization.
Ultimately, the outcome of de-dollarization is highly country-specific, and any recommendations, even from reputable institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), may not accurately reflect Zambia’s circumstances and must be carefully evaluated against the backdrop of Zambia’s distinct economic landscape. There is a need for a tailored approach to de-dollarization. An independent study, grounded in local data and expertise, is essential to inform decision-making.
The writer is a Chartered Accountant, Author, and an independent financial analyst and Economic Commentator. He is the Founder of Prosper Knowledge Solutions Ltd, a virtual Knowledge and Strategy firm.
In a momentous achievement for Team Zambia, Muzala Samukonga has qualified for the final of the men’s 400m race at the Paris 2024 Olympic Games. Samukonga clocked an impressive time of 43.81 seconds, setting a new personal best and a national record for Zambia.
Samukonga’s performance in the heats has placed him among the top contenders for the final, showcasing his exceptional talent and dedication to the sport. His achievement has brought immense pride to Zambia, highlighting the nation’s growing presence in the world of athletics.
The entire nation eagerly anticipates Samukonga’s performance in the final, hopeful for a medal and inspired by his record-breaking run. His qualification marks a significant milestone for Zambian athletics and serves as a testament to the hard work and determination of its athletes.
President Hakainde Hichilema held a bilateral meeting with and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dr. Dmytro Kuleba yesterday. The discussions focused on fortifying the longstanding bilateral relations between Zambia and Ukraine, which have been steadfast since 1993, and addressing the ongoing Russia-Ukraine War, which has resulted in immense human suffering and global economic disruptions.
President Hichilema reaffirmed Zambia’s commitment to supporting a comprehensive and lasting peace in Ukraine through dialogue. “Zambia remains committed to supporting a comprehensive and lasting peace in Ukraine through dialogue,” he stated.
A notable outcome of the meeting was Ukraine’s proposal to establish Zambia as a regional grain distribution hub. This initiative aims to leverage Zambia’s strategic location, surrounded by nine neighboring countries, and the transportation capabilities of the Lobito and Tazara Corridors. This move is expected to enhance regional food security and economic stability.
The engagement underscored the strong and enduring partnership between Zambia and Ukraine, highlighting the potential for increased cooperation in various sectors. Both nations expressed optimism about the positive impact of these discussions on their bilateral relations and regional stability.
President Hichilema concluded the meeting by expressing gratitude for Ukraine’s forward-thinking approach and commitment to strengthening ties with Zambia. The discussions mark a pivotal moment in the ongoing efforts to enhance cooperation and support peace in Ukraine.
Rioters set fire and broke into hotels used to shelter asylum seekers in northern England on Sunday, as the country grapples with the worst social unrest it has seen in years.
The violence was triggered by the stabbing of three young girls in Southport, northwest England, earlier in the week. The far right has seized on and spread a wave of disinformation, including false claims the attacker was an immigrant, to mobilize anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant protests. Police say the suspect was born in Britain.
Footage geolocated by CNN shows protesters on Sunday vandalizing and setting ablaze two Holiday Inns in northern England: one in Tamworth, which had previously been criticized by a local politician for housing asylum seekers, and another in Rotherham.
In Tamworth, protesters threw projectiles, smashed windows, and started fires, injuring one police officer, according to local authorities. Meanwhile in Rotherham, protesters threw wooden planks, used fire extinguishers against officers, set fire to objects near the hotel, and smashed windows to gain entry to the building, police said.
The Rotherham hotel at the time was “full of terrified residents and staff,” according to a statement by Assistant Chief Constable Lindsey Butterfield.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has condemned the weekend’s violent protests, which saw at least 147 people arrested since Saturday night. Those involved in violence will face the full force of the law, he warned.
“People in this country have a right to be safe and yet, we’ve seen Muslim communities targeted, attacks on mosques, other minority communities singled out, Nazi salutes in the street, attacks on the police, wanton violence alongside racist rhetoric. So no, I won’t shy away from calling it what it is: Far-right thuggery,” Starmer said from Downing Street on Sunday.
Turning to the violent scenes in Rotherham, Starmer described “marauding gangs intent on law-breaking” and emphasized that violent rioters do not “represent our country.”
The UK’s policing minister has said that there will be a “nick them quick” approach to far-right rioters who have caused unrest, but added there was no need to bring in the army.
In comments to the BBC, Dame Diana Johnson stressed that the plan was to carry out swift arrests and charges in order to take rioters off the street as quickly as possible and act as a deterrent to prevent further unrest.
The violent unrest is the worst seen since the riots of 2011 and provides a huge challenge to the Labour government of Keir Starmer just weeks after it won power.
There have been discussions to bring in the army to assist police, but currently “there is no need to bring in the army,” Johnson said. “The police have made it very clear that they have all the resources they need at the moment. There’s mutual aid, as I’ve just described, and they have the powers that they need.”
On Sunday, the UK’s Home Office announced that mosques in the United Kingdom would be offered “greater protection with new emergency security” in light of recent attacks.
Under the new arrangements, “the police, local authorities and mosques can ask for rapid security to be deployed, protecting communities and allowing for a return to worship as quickly as possible,” the Home Office said.
“Nobody should make any excuses for the shameful actions of the hooligans, thugs and extremist groups who have been attacking police officers, looting local shops or attacking people based on the color of their skin,” Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said.
In an emotional and heartfelt funeral service, Dr. Nevers Mumba delivered a profound keynote address honoring the life of renowned gospel artist Matthew Ngosa. The service, held at Praise Christian Center, brought together a diverse gathering of individuals from various backgrounds, churches, denominations, tribes, and political affiliations, reflecting the unity that Ngosa’s life symbolized for many Zambians.
Dr. Mumba emphasized how Matthew’s life and legacy had united people from all walks of life. “Matthew, despite being a great gospel legend and pioneer in gospel music with his brothers, the Ngosa Brothers, was very humble and down-to-earth. Today’s gathering of thousands of people, including the clergy, gospel artists, and government leaders, is a reflection of who Matthew was,” Dr. Mumba noted.
Matthew Ngosa, who passed away at the age of 46, left an indelible mark on the music industry and the lives of those who knew him. His dedication to his faith, passion for his craft, and generosity of spirit inspired countless individuals. The service was a celebration of his life, filled with eulogies and performances that captured the essence of his ministry.
Dr. Mumba concluded his dynamic message by reminding the congregation that, “Titles and positions come and go, but one thing that remains steadfast in our lives is our Lord Jesus.” His words resonated deeply with the attendees, highlighting the enduring impact of Ngosa’s faith and character.
Following the send-off service, Matthew Ngosa was laid to rest at Memorial Park. The emotional gathering underscored the void left by his passing but also celebrated the lasting legacy he leaves behind. His music and the values he embodied will continue to inspire and uplift future generations. As the congregation sang and prayed together, it was evident that Ngosa’s memory will remain a blessing to all who knew him.
Petauke Central Member of Parliament Emmanuel Jay Banda, who faces aggravated robbery charges, has escaped from lawful custody. Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security, Jack Mwiimbu, announced the news during a media briefing.
Mr. Banda escaped from Chipata General Hospital Sunday evening around 22:00 hours, where he was receiving medical treatment.
“I would like to inform the nation that around 22:00 hours, the Member of Parliament for Petauke Central, Jay Banda, who was in our custody at the Chipata Correctional Service, has escaped from lawful custody,” said Mr. Mwiimbu.
The escape occurred despite being guarded by two Zambia Police officers and three officers from the Zambia Correctional Service. Preliminary investigations revealed that Mr. Banda escaped through the window of the ward where he was receiving treatment. “He escaped lawful custody using the hospital window; how he did it is a matter that is still under investigation,” Mr. Mwiimbu added.
Mr. Banda was committed to the High Court for trial for aggravated robbery, a non-bailable offense, and was under the custody of the Zambia Correctional Service at the time of his escape.
Mr. Mwiimbu has called on local and international security agencies to ensure no safe haven is provided to Mr. Banda, emphasizing the need to find him safe and alive. “We appeal to the local and international security agencies to ensure that there should be no safe haven for the fugitive,” he stated.
Action has been taken against the officers responsible for guarding Mr. Banda, with the five officers now in police custody assisting with the investigation. Mr. Mwiimbu described the escape as an unfortunate incident and assured that the due process of the law would be followed.
Inspector General of Police Graphel Musamba has appealed to the public for any information regarding Mr. Banda’s whereabouts, encouraging people to inform the police freely. Zambia Correctional Service Commissioner General Frederick Chilukutu attributed the escape to negligence by the officers on duty.
Mr. Banda allegedly jumped through a window of the premium ward on the third floor at Chipata Central Hospital. Police have since launched a manhunt for him. He was remanded at Namuseche Prison in Chipata while awaiting his High Court appearance for aggravated robbery and attempted robbery cases.
ZAMBIA Army recruit Musamba Kapoma junior has continued engraving his name in local amateur golf after winning the Mazabuka Open Golf tournament on Sunday.
Fresh from winning the Lusaka Golf Club championship a week ago, 21-year-old Kapoma shot 145 gross to top an impressive field of 72 golfers who entered the two-day event in the sweetest town in Zambia.
He shot 78 during the first round on Saturday and completed his good showing by gross carding 67 gross on Sunday to put the icing on the cake.
“I feel so happy I had a feeling that this time around I will win it because I have been coming second place twice in a row and finally have been crowned champion this year,” Kapoma, who plays off +3, said.
He had a good round on Sunday especially his shot game which was on point.
“My putting was solid to able to shoot (-5),” the Zambia Army golfer still undergoing military training and will pass out very soon,” said.
Kapoma was among the seven players the Zambia Army team fielded in the land of sugarcane production.
Another Army recruit Stalion Daka finished in third place.
Nkana golfer Dominic Musonda was runner up, winning on count back after having tied on 154 gross with Stallion Daka.
He won the playoffs with a par, bogey and bird on three holes while Stallian got a double bogey, bogey and a bird.
“My performance in the Mazabuka Open was not good especially my first round. I struggled with putting because the greens were not in good condition,” Musonda said.
Denmark Mulambo of Kabwe Golf Club could not believe that he was fourth overall after having led on the first day with 74 gross but collapsed on the last day and shot 79 gross.
Felix Mwiinga, who shot 76 and 77 gross respectively came out fifth was the highest ranked golfer from Mazabuka.
While Kapoma junior and Daka were raising the Zambia Army flag in Mazabuka, female golfer Kaela Mulenga was also doing the same at Lusaka Golf Club where she dominated the ladies open.
Mulenga, a warrant officer class two shot 168 gross to be crowned the Lusaka Ladies Golf Open tournament on Sunday.
“On day one (Saturday), I had a very tough time on the golf course and I was lying third overall. I was behind by six shots from Martha Matyola,” Mulenga said
On the final, she played very well and won by 13 shots, bringing her back to back championships to two in a week.
Matyola eventually had 175 gross and settled for second place in a field of 15 golfers.
Last weekend, Mulenga also won the Chainama Hills Golf ClubChampionship on 157.
Esther Wemba was runner up on 162 gross while Lorna Mwenda was third with the gross of 163 gross in the field of 21 female golfers.
Nkabafye bwino nangu ndeinda nama ntangasa ifi, ( I will be fine even if I am limping like this), former Information and Broadcasting Minister Chishimba Kambwili who also served as Roan Constituency Member of Parliament has assured Zambians.
Speaking during the burial of former Luanshya deputy Mayor Manifold Nguni at Milemu cemetery on Monday afternoon, Mr Kambwili also advised young politicians not to be tribal when practicing politics.
Mr Kambwili who in the recent past was jailed five months for hate speech, urged politicians to unite Zambia and not to be tribal when practicing politics.
The former cabinet minister sent mourners to laughter when he said he will be fine although he was limping and that even if he died they should come and mourn him in the same way they had mourned the late Mr Nguni.
He described,Mr Nguni as a unifier, and a man who loved mankind.
Speaking at the same occasion, former Government Chief Whip Steve Chungu said the late Mr Nguni was a source of wisdom to young and upcoming politicians.
Mr Chungu called for unity among politicians and Zambians at large.
Former Luanshya Mayor Nathan Chanda also described Mr Nguni as a great man and a father to all Luanshya residents.
” I worked with Mr Nguni, although he was my deputy ,he was my source of wisdom, he was a father for all,” Mr Chanda said.
Mr Chanda also commended the incumbent Luanshya Mayor Charles Mulenga for uniting all civic leaders and politicians regardless of their political affiliations in the district especially during the bereavement of the late Mr Nguni.
Former councillors , former Mayors and deputy mayors as well as ex Members of Parliament attend the burial of Mr Nguni who died at Luanshya’s Roan general hospital after an illness last Friday.
Notable among the former political leaders who attended the funeral ceremony of Mr Nguni are , former Luanshya Mp Roy Chulumanda who served as Mp for Luanshya in the late president Frederick Chiluba’s administration, former Luanshya Mayor Famous Kabwe and former Luanshya deputy mayor Golden Mulenga.
Hundreds of Luanshya residents also attended the burial of the late Luanshya alderman Mr Nguni.
Zambia has initiated the importation of 218 megawatts of power from South Africa’s Electricity Supply Commission (ESCOM) during off-peak hours. This move, starting from August 1st, aims to mitigate the country’s power deficit.
ZESCO Spokesperson, Matongo Maumbi, confirmed the additional power import in an interview with ZNBC News at the ongoing 96th Agricultural and Commercial Society show in Lusaka. Maumbi stated that the importation has enabled ZESCO to stabilize the power supply, meeting the rising demand and ensuring critical installations like hospitals, mines, and other industries receive uninterrupted power.
Maumbi highlighted that ZESCO is taking measures to ensure public institutions are not affected during power rationing. The power utility company is isolating certain public institutions and has procured generators to maintain power supply during load shedding.
“So far, 22 generators have been procured and are expected to arrive in the country within the month,” Maumbi said. These generators will be installed in vital public institutions such as hospitals and market areas where it is challenging to isolate from the national grid during load shedding.
This strategic move by ZESCO aims to enhance the reliability of power supply and support the country’s essential services amid growing energy demands.
Zambian star athlete Muzala Samukonga has advanced to the semifinals of the men’s 400m at the 2024 Paris Summer Olympics. He blazed through round 1 heat 3 with an incredible time of 44.56 seconds.
The long-awaited rehabilitation works on the 87.3 kilometres section of the Lusaka-Mongu Road from Tateyoyo Gate-Katunda Junction in Western Province is set to be commissioned.
Kaoma District Commissioner, Sheba Muyambango says the construction works are expected to be commissioned this week on August 7th 2024.
In an interview with ZANIS Ms Muyambango has shown gratitude to the government on behalf of Kaoma and Western Province for a speedy answer in ensuring that the bad road is restored to bituminous standards.
“Within two and a half years, the government is responding to the people’s extensive cry. It has been over 5 years that we have been crying for this road,” she noted.
Ms Muyambango brought to light that preparations for the ground-breaking ceremony are currently on course.
“The road has been in a very bad state. Instead of taking 30 minutes from Nkeyema to Kaoma people are taking two hours,”
She highlighted that the road is so bad such that motorists are now opting to use the longest Livingstone route instead of the Lusaka-Mongu road.
Kaoma District residents have shown happiness with the news of works to be carried out on the dilapidated Lusaka-Mongu stretch, an important trade route to the Western Province.
Kenny Kanyanga has expressed thanks to President Hakainde Hichilema for such a long awaited but dream come true road rehabilitation.
“I am so excited about these works. I can’t wait for the ground breaking, maybe we can also get some jobs along-side the construction workers,” he highlighted.
Senior academic, Dr Sishuwa Sishuwa, has once again put on display his penchant for deeply troubling personal attacks on those he happens to disagree with.
So, Sishuwa criticises UNZA lecturer and former ACC Board Member, Dr O’Brien Kaaba, for entering a consent judgement in the matter in which Solicitor General, Marshal Muchende, had sued him for suggesting that he is corrupt.It is Sishuwa’s view that, in appending his signature to the judgement, Dr Kaaba gave in to pressure from power holders. He labels him a coward who wants to remain on the right side of job opportunities. Vicious claim, but hey.
The point is Sishuwa is a commentator on public interest issues and, therefore, well within his right to express his unhappiness with the way a matter of public interest has played out. It is his role to contribute to the public discourse and ignite debate.Where things become problematic is where he himself seriously accuses O’Brien of supporting the withdrawal of the case for tribal reasons. With no justification, other than that Dr Kaaba, Solicitor Muchende and President Hichilema are all Tonga, he makes that very insulting assertion.
Again, I ask why? Why go there? Why suggest your colleague, your academic and professional equal has made a major decision based on such an unthinking consideration like tribe. Why want to be in the company of base loudmouths like Chishimba Kambwili by advancing uncalled for hateful speech?This slur, unfortunately, comes not long after Sishuwa termed O’Brien a praise singer.
Now, it can’t be that Sishuwa is bereft of substantive arguments against the decision O’Brien has made. It is that the Stellenbosch lecturer has this inexplicable way of articulating himself in ways that go against what one would expect from an individual with his expansive intellect, education and exposure. One whose whole profession is predicated on evidenced, substantiated and objective argument.
So, yes, these personal attacks, as well as Sishuwa’s taste for huge unevidenced claims that he does not apologise for, when proved unfounded, is something he needs to work on.
I will end with a small amusing fact. When Sishuwa sued Emmanuel Mwamba for defamation, he entered a consent judgement with him, rather than let the case play out in court.
Sishuwa Sishuwa Responds To Laura Miti
Sishuwa Sishuwa
Hello Laura!
I have read your response to my criticism of O’Brien Kaaba’s strange consent judgement with the man he only days ago called corrupt, Solicitor General Marsal Muchende. I welcome your response because, for me, the idea behind writing in the public domain is to encourage open engagement. In fact, I am disappointed that more people do not criticise what I put out. Readers should freely question my views and positions on any given subject. Their feedback may either broaden my perspectives or cause me to counter in a manner that both raises the quality of public debate and promotes wider understanding of the issues being discussed.
I believe that those who welcome praise must also accept criticism. Having claimed and exercised my freedom of expression, I am only all too aware of the right of others to exercise the same free speech on any matter, including when commenting on my public commentaries. Being human, it is natural that we will have varying lines of thought. I do believe, however, that it is only through many conversations that we can reconsider our positions, challenge our assumptions, question our convictions, and come to appreciate our own ignorance. Of course, the notion of content-based discussion seems like a tall order in today’s polarised Zambia, where any criticism of the government is deemed as support for the opposition, and vice-versa. We must get rid of this binary divide. It is unproductive, curtails meaningful interactions, and draws attention away from the real issues.
Now to the issues. I will ignore the ad hominem attacks in your response and focus on two subjects that I think deserve proper discussion. The first is your attempt to conflate Kaaba’s consent judgement with the one that I entered into with Emmanuel Mwamba in 2022. I find this comparison to be a crime against reason. I just do not see how any informed person can compare the two judgements because they are so demonstrably different: One involved admission of liability (mine) while the other (the one involving Kaaba against the government official he has branded corrupt) involved no such thing. Let me simplify this explanation for easy understanding by providing context to how mine came about.
In March 2021, I wrote an opinion piece that discussed the lack of freedoms in Zambia in the lead up to upcoming 2021 elections. The article was published initially in News Diggers in Zambia and subsequently in the Mail & Guardian newspaper in South Africa. Here is the article.
In response to the Mail and Guardian version of the article, Emmanuel Mwamba, at the time Zambia’s High Commissioner to Ethiopia and formerly Zambia’s High Commissioner to South Africa, alleged that my article was a “paid for opinion” and said “I can even guess who paid for that Op-Ed article in the Mail & Guardian”. He also accused me of being a hired gun, sponsored by then opposition leader Hakainde Hichilema and his opposition United Party for National Development. Here is a link to Mwamba’s article.
Because I have never ever sought nor claimed monetary benefits from anyone, dead or alive, for my public commentaries, I found Mwamba’s assertions injurious to my professional reputation. I also found malicious his insinuations that I supported Hichilema, even as this was and remains my democratic and constitutional right. As a result, I wrote to Mwamba, stating that neither the Mail & Guardian nor I had received any payment for publishing the article. I therefore requested him to retract his “defamatory and false” claims and apologise within 48 hours or face legal action. I have attached the letter of demand as evidence.
After Mwamba neglected to retract and apologise for what I felt were malicious assertions, I sued him in the Lusaka High Court, in April 2021, explaining why I felt defamed and attaching documentary evidence in support of my suit, including a letter from the Mail & Guardian newspaper which explained that I have never asked or received money from the publication for my activism.
Like other general cases, defamation suits in Zambia’s court system take long to be heard. By the end of 2021, four months after the ruling party to which Mwamba belonged lost power to Hichilema, the matter had not yet taken off. In January 2022, Mwamba, through his lawyers Makebi Zulu Advocates, wrote to my lawyers, Mwenye and Mwitwa Advocates, effectively admitting that he could not substantiate the assertions he had made against me and expressing his “willingness to sit on the negotiating table and settle this matter ex-curia.”
In response, and through my lawyers, I accepted the proposal for an out of court settlement on three conditions: that he apologises for making malicious claims against me, pays a nominal fee as admission of guilt, and settles the legal fees to my lawyers. See attached for evidence. It was on this basis that the consent judgement between Mwamba and I was entered into in June 2022, and he subsequently proceeded to implement the contents of the said judgement.
Given the abbreviated context that I have just outlined, I believe you will note significant differences between these two unrelated cases that you are trying to connect in an uninformed way that makes the cases appear harmonious. In my view, there are two critical differences in the two cases. The first difference is that in my case, the consent judgement arose from the recognition by the sued party that they could not substantiate the defamatory assertions they had made about me, and the realisation that they stood to lose the case in court and suffer high costs in both compensation and legal fees.
On this basis, and before the case had even commenced, the sued party reached out to my lawyers to seek out the person whose reputation they had injured and request for a settlement. This, in my view, was a rational and wise move. If you sue me because I have said something malicious against you and I discover that I was wrong, it is my responsibility to cut my costs and run. That is what Mwamba did. It was then entirely up to me, the injured party, to accept or not to accept the olive branch. I accepted the proposal for a settlement on the conditions that were clearly outlined, and which became the public contents of the consent judgement itself. I made it clear that if Mwamba was not amenable to all the conditions I set, then the matter should proceed to trial. He was amenable to all of them, and this is a matter of public record.
I should mention that for me, my interest in suing Mwamba was not money, but the need to (i) unearth the truth behind what was alleged and defend my professional integrity, (ii) promote content-based discussion, (iii) have civility and decency in our public exchanges, and (iv) raise both the level and quality of public debate. This explains why I instructed my lawyers to charge Mwamba the LOWEST amount possible under damages for civil defamation. Even after he paid the money, through my lawyers, I never touched it. Instead, I donated the whole amount to charity. For me, it was about principle. Again, this is a matter of public record.
https://x.com/ssishuwa/status/1550003221220958209
The second fundamental difference between the cases you are conflating is that in my case against Mwamba, the terms of settlement were transparently made clear and included in the consent judgement. The judgement had specific details of what needed to be done. The consent judgement between Kaaba and Marshal has neither content nor details of what motivated this settlement and the next steps. The fact that the case Marshal v Kaaba case was discontinued through a vague consent judgement rather than the plaintiff filing a notice of discontinuance raises many questions which, unfortunately, have implications on the reputations of both parties.
In my originating post, I asked why Kaaba consented to the withdrawal of the case when he told us he had evidence of Marshal’s corruption. If you know the answer, please share it I am sure there are many people who are as keen as I am to understand his reasons. If you do not know the answer, may you please ask Kaaba, since he is a board member of your civic outfit Alliance for Community Action, to publicly explain why he particularly consented to the withdrawal of the matter when he had evidence of Marshal’s corruption? We members of the public are interested in learning the reasons behind his strange decision to formally go to bed with the same person he had called corrupt.
This is an important point when one considers the fact that what is at stake is not a family dispute between Kaaba and Marshal – assuming they are related! It is high-level corruption, one that Kaaba openly told us that a public officer in the name of Marshal was perpetuating, an assertion that he was looking forward to proving in the courts of law. The public therefore is an interested party and has legitimate reason to seek explanations for what motivated this consent judgement that conceals its origins. If Kaaba has evidence of Marshal’s corruption, as he claimed only days ago, why did he sign a consent to discontinue the case? Please ask him for us since he is a board member of your NGO, which among other things, fights for the promotion of public accountability.
Why did Kaaba agree to the judgement without getting Marshal to formally acknowledge that he is indeed corrupt, as alleged by Kaaba, and, for this reason, was discontinuing the suit as an acknowledgement of guilt? Was it because any indication of guilt on Marshal’s part would have increased public pressure on Hichilema to dismiss him from his government position? Do you see the basis for the four implications that I outlined in my main post? If Kaaba, who had no need to consent to the judgement, realised that he cannot defend the claims he made against Marshal and risks losing the case if it went to trial, then this should have been part of the details of the consent so that we, members of the public, are in the know about what led to this consent judgement. This way, the public would know that Marshal is innocent, and that Kaaba was simply making malicious accusations against an innocent person or relative.
It is fair to say that many Zambians are not expecting much from Marshal in the way of showing respect for the office he occupies by way of stepping down on his own. We know that Marshal has said he won’t resign. We know that Hichilema won’t, for whatever reason, dismiss him. If Marshal refused to admit to Kaaba’s allegation that he is corrupt, why then didn’t Kaaba stand his ground and refuse to be part of the consent judgement so that Marshal could have discontinued the case on his own? Was Kaaba intimidated? And if he was, by who and why? And if he chickened out, then what does this say about Kaaba?
In my view, true, authentic leadership is not the illusions of political power or the positions that one holds in any formal structure; it is the courageous pursuit of the truth in the face of grave dangers posed to those who pursue such truth. True leaders are those individuals who hold steadfast to their principles in the face of all opposition and personal dangers, who hoist and proclaim virtue. These, in my view, are true leaders. History always vindicates them, just as it always undresses liars, cowards, and those, especially in civil society and academia, who collaborate with political leaders who nurture injustice, undermine democracy and human rights, and oppress, loot, divide, and impoverish the people.
Rather than picking up useless side quarrels with me, or attempting to deflect attention from the real issues at hand (in this case the grand corruption of the Hichilema administration, the president’s refusal to dismiss Marshal, and Kaaba’s unacceptable capitulation), any sane person must be concerned that Hichilema has sustained Marshal in his position despite confirmation from the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) that they have been investigating the Solicitor General for corruption over the last one year. By signing a consent deal with the man he has called corrupt, your board member, Kaaba, is taking the side of Marshal and Hichilema, not the side of public interest. WHY?
The Marshal case has clearly shown that Hichilema has no spine to deal with corruption if those accused of involvement in it are officials close to him. The real test about Hichilema’s commitment to fighting corruption was always never going to be the games he is playing against former officials but the attitude and decisive leadership that he demonstrates to the fight when members of his inner circle – such as one or two presidential aides at State House, three cabinet ministers, four permanent secretaries, or indeed the senior government officials named by Kaaba – are accused of involvement in corruption.
And as you yourself have stated publicly, Hichilema has lamentably failed the test on several occasions including when it comes to how he has dealt with the Marshal issue. Hichilema has not invited Marshal to resign the way he reportedly did with ACC Director General Thom Shamakamba. Hichilema has disbanded the entire board of the ACC. At the heart of these development is Kaaba, the person who told us that there is blatant corruption at the highest level of the state and that he has evidence to back these assertions. Yet the same Kaaba is now willing to strike a content-free deal with the official he branded corrupt and consequently helping him, as Hichilema has done, to remain in his post. I ask: WHY? Please ask him to explain.
The second issue that deserves brief discussion is your statement that I should not have referred to Kaaba’s ethnic identity, one that he shares with Marshal and Hichilema, as a possible explanation behind his strange decision to go to bed with the man he has branded corrupt. I have two points to make here. The first point is that I raised the issue of ethnic identity within the context of possibilities that may explain why Kaaba made that odd decision with Marshal. I cited the book written by Michela Wrong titled Our Turn to Eat, provided the context behind that specific possibility of ethnic considerations as a possible motivation, and expressed my view in a disjunctive rather than conjunctive sense.
If this particular possibility is wrong, it is for Kaaba – not you or any other third party to the consent judgement– to tell us by explaining which of the possibilities I stated, or any other beyond them, informed his decision making. It is a fact that Kaaba and his newly consented partner, Marshal, are both ethnic Tongas, as is Hichilema who appears to be so protective of Marshal. If Kaaba did not enter into this strange consent judgement with the man he says is corrupt on the basis of ethnic considerations or because he was encouraged to strike the deal by Tonga elders, it is his responsibility, not yours, to make this clear and explain what motivated him to consent to the discontinuance of the case.
The second point is that we must get used to discussing uncomfortable subjects such as those bordering on ethnic identity. I have noted, with sympathy, the chorus of some in our country who insist that I should not have included the issue of tribe in what I said. I reject any prescriptions from anyone, human or divine, about what I should discuss in relation to issues of public concern. I am aware that there are many in our country, perhaps including you and Hichilema, who are very uncomfortable with any discussion that touches on ethnic considerations, but that is their problem, not mine. I refuse to be recruited into their brackets. We must discuss anything and anyone fearlessly, especially if the subject relates to public interest or concerns.
In my view, what the uncomfortables should deal with is the source of their discomfort, not my drawing attention to the need to discuss even uncomfortable truths or subjects. I have noted a growing attempt by some in our country to limit any discussion that touches on ethnic issues, and to condemn and discredit those drawing attention to the reality and dangers of ‘tribalism’ or regionalism, whatever the merit of their views, rather than those practising it. Some elements of this orchestrated campaign of condemnation worry me very deeply.
It is suggested, for instance, that those who criticise Hichilema’s leadership actions do so because they either hate him as an individual, or hate his ethnic identity, or hate the province or region where he comes from. As a result, such critics should be rounded up and arrested for the expanded crime of ‘hate speech’! Some in our own country agitate for these extraordinary propositions with a degree of fanaticism that is truly frightening. It is most strange that you too seem ready to serve the cause of such fanatics by insinuating that we must freeze any discussion on ethnic issues.
Not long ago, before the 2021 election, both the leadership of the then ruling party and the supporters insisted that I should not discuss any issue bordering on ethnic matters whenever I criticised the marginalisation of other ethnic groups such as the Tongas in Edgar Lungu’s Zambia. See the links below for examples.
I am now being asked to do precisely the same thing that the PF and its supporters did, which is to ask me to participate in censoring myself when it comes to any discussions bordering on ethnic issues. I reject this invitation with the contempt it deserves, as I did under the PF. I consider any issues affecting public interest as ripe for discussion. The only way I can be persuaded on any given subject is to demonstrate the weakness in my point of view on that subject, not to tell me that there exists a particular view on it that is supported by the majority, against which dissent is prohibited.
I know that I do say things that make some people feel uncomfortable. I insist that it is not my role to say things that make anyone comfortable. On matters of public concern, I will not be bullied into silence by anyone. I have the right to think and express my opinions.
Although it should ordinarily not matter, I would like to mention that while I have the academic tools, I do not speak out on issues of public interest because I am an academic. I speak out because it is my responsibility as a citizen – my primary identity – to hold public leaders and the government to account, and to promote the ideals and objectives of Zambia’s constitution. I insist that every citizen needs to take these duties seriously. To be silent in the face of abuse, injustice, inequality, corruption and attacks on democracy and human rights is to actively participate in sustaining the status quo.
