By W.E.Kamirichiki, PhD

Mr. Edgar Lungu Chagwa and his PF believe most Zambians are politically naïve, are blind to the true history and facts of MMD’s privatization of Zambia’s state enterprises, and that Zambians will not see that PF are already in the campaign season for presidential elections. The profound tragedy we face in this country is that Lungu and his unpatriotic front are playing extreme forms of dirty political games. Currently, the game is in the period in which the referee has called out HH in the so-called HH’s “extensive abuse of the privatisation process” This insidious framing is from the “referee” also known as government spokeswoman—Dora Siliya. It is a broader attempt at misinformation, disinformation and propaganda to win elections. It is bound to fail.

That Lungu and his PF is bent on sowing malice and craving to scandalize HH and UPND is not a secret. It is a venture that has been alive for some time now. It is an open secret.

But let us return to this nothing burger about HH’s role in Zambia’s privatization activities. In its then progress report on privatization in Africa, the World Bank in 1996 praised Zambia, attested thus: “…Zambia has the most successful privatization program to date, and the experience there offers many examples of best practice…… the privatization program has not been without its problems. Because of its fragile economic situation, the country was not readily attractive to foreign investors; but multinational companies who have invested in Zambia are impressed with the way the program is being managed. As a result, the country is now one of the most attractive to investors in Africa”. (The World Bank, 1996).

One of the 8 factors for success of the divestiture program was transparency, namely the steps taken to inform the public about the program and to encourage maximum Zambian participation in the process”. On all these factors, the World Bank rated Zambia “medium to high”(see figure below of landmarks in Zambia’s Privatization Program). This suggests that there were little to no reservations about the players (which included HH) undertaking the privatization exercise. Put differently, the privatization team, generally, were foresighted, careful, and conducted proper planning of the anticipated issues and risks associated with the deals, and successfully consummated the privatization exercise as indicated in the outline below.

Fast word 20 years later, the Chinaization of Zambia’s assets under Lungu’s Patriotic Front has been an utter debt-riddled disaster from hell, akin to “ a Chawama-like drunk, gesturing and selling everything in the house” . Under Lungu, Chinaization has shifted control of enterprises and economic activity from state agencies and Zambians to a clique of foreign individuals with inside connections to the PF and the presidency.

Among Zambians there has never been a lower trust of the management of the economy, and an increasing public cynicism about PF’s political and economic leaders, fuelled by the abject failure of Lungu’s economic team to improve the lot of the average Zambians, hence the mafia-like underhanded methods to shift and distract public attention from the current economic failures to manufacture non-existent problems under the earlier 1996 privatization. Again, PF’s bogey man is their tried, tested, and methodical political opponent—HH. And for this venture, the PF is using Edith Nawakwi, herself part of the 1996 Zambian privatization effort that the World Bank, ironically, praised.

But even if we were to accept the absurd accusation that HH profited from the exercise, the larger question is: If the privatization act passed under the MMD government in July 1996 had flaws, was poorly written or poorly enforced and full of loopholes that enabled insiders to pull off tricky schemes, why didn’t the then Minister, Nawakwi, point these out? Why now? There is no doubt that her phoney “revelations” are political utterances for profit and favour in Lungu’s tanking economy and odorous political universe. Speaking of the economy and the politics, the way he runs our now covid-scared country, is so chaotic — the haphazardly indecisive appointments, the industrial scale corruption, the dereliction of duty, the policy-free press statements, the PF thug-riddled fog around the presidency —all echo the empty tyrannies in other jurisdictions on our continent.

Consider the number of corruption cases and shady transactions (Fire tracks, ESwatini land deal, Lungu’s cost-inefficient and unnecessary travels, Mukula timber scandals, etc ) have occurred under PF government. How many of his associates have been indicted and convicted? Zero. Nein. None!

That is Lungu’s Zambia. Since entering State House, his PF thugs have ushered in and stoked violence, tribalism, and divisions. Lungu is the owner of Zambian disorder and chaos. But framing HH is what he is bent on doing because he cannot run the country in the method HH would. Still, he wants Zambians to digest an incorrect portrait of HH as the “Other” Zambian—trumpeting the bogus notion that HH is a tribalist even as Lungu himself is overtly promoting tribalism by not disavowing those who direct it against HH. But it is Lungu and his ill-informed and mis-informed cadres who bear a disproportionately greater place for turning our country into one of intrigue and mindless political factions. And the intrigue, the suspicion, the mistrust, the hopelessness, confusion, and the unforgivable incompetence are not just new happenings, they are trending upwards to a disturbing point for our country.

Desperate to retain the presidency and misuse power , at the time of the worst economic period in our country, and mixed with the uncertain and deadly public health catastrophe to have come to our land in decades, Lungu is stirring a deadly brew for all of us. It is difficult to project how far he will continue to rattle the opposition, especially UPND and HH. But primitive political persecution in which the victim responds with fidelity to the law, maintains common decency, and transfers burdens to the divine, often leads to political sainthood. There is a sense in which HH is on this track. Some Zambians believe that the act of using Edith Nawakwi to cast aspersions against HH is yet another instalment in a template that includes a bogus Mongu traffic case, the break-and-enter of HH’s house, and the fog of Mukobeko prison all over again. Some Zambians have vowed never again to let PF run rough shod against the opposition. And this could light the country. But most Zambians do not want to go down that road, except the most extreme in the opposition parties, who may become uncontrollable if Lungu pursues the most darnedest scorched earth political strategies to remain in power.

But we must reject Lungu’s selfish political warfare strategies to turn our country in another Somalia, or a country in which political disagreements are license to take flight from debate on serious issues facing the country, or as means to foolishly frame and persecute political opponents with bogus non-existent crimes. But all these PF political strategies are routes to energize the PF thugs ahead of 2021 elections—which many political observers believe Lungu will loose on account of a politically unforgivable crime of destroying the social, political, and economic well-being of Zambia. Through a politically dumb fiction of a bungled privatization of Zambia under HH, Lungu and his enablers want to distract Zambians from PF’s failed management of the Chinaization of the economy and good governance of the country.

Remember the tragic gassing that bedevilled the country? To date, no commission of inquiry, no report, no state address to the country. Nothing. Nothing under Lungu because he is an incompetent fake of a president.

In stirring up fake crimes, drip-drip chaos, thugs in his PF party, Lungu is desperately marinating a possible disgraceful path to a 2021 election win. We saw and continue to see what his PF agents of sabotage and violence do to opposition campaigns. In Chilubi Island, for example, they did this through depriving the opposition of access boats to the island and claiming all lodges in the island in the follow up to the elections.

Zambians in love with their country know that PF and Lungu’s game plan is already underway. As so the UPND, HH and all the opposition know that Lungu wants to manufacture, amplify and publicize fake anti-UPND/HH campaigns as much as possible. Lungu’s thuggish infrastructure of violence know the strategy and have done “trial runs” ever since Lungu ascended to the presidency. But most Zambians know by now which party is for development and which one is for destruction and backwardness.

Empty and unethical campaign strategies are the core of the PF regime. But this attempt at manufacturing yet another bogus crime against HH is certainly the most disturbing because it now involves abusing a woman’s esteem and her intellectual capacity for selfish ends. Women—and Edith Nawakwi as a misused political tool—in the hands of PF is a pattern, a tendency, and a habit. We have seen the distance to which Dora Siliya, Mumbi Phiri, and Nkandu Luo have travelled to soil the political discourse of our country. It is a continuously dangerous reminder for how long and low PF and Lungu can stoop to maintain and acquire power. Most Zambians find this latest anti-HH episode disgraceful. But it is a losing political strategy of the party and the leader completely empty of arguments to govern the country and win in 2021. Lungu and PF must surely be voted out to save our country from unending pain, embarrassment, ridicule, and shame in all their multiple dimensions.

Dr. W.E. Kamirichiki is a political, social, and environmental affairs commentator, based in Lusaka.

By Sean Tembo – PeP President

1. It was with great interest that l read the demand letter which was purportedly written by the lawyers for the UPND President Mr Hakainde Hichilema and directed to the FDD President and former Finance Minister Honorable Edith Nawakwi, regarding the allegations of misconduct in the privatization process leveled against Mr Hichilema. As severally indicated in the past, our interest has been to get to the bottom of this issue and that if anyone is found culpable, then they need to atone for their misconduct. It was for this reason that we initially requested that Mr Hichilema provides a detailed rebuttal of the allegations that had been leveled against him and not just respond through Facebook and Twitter memes. Although many of his supporters saw our request for a detailed rebuttal as an attack by ourselves against Mr Hichilema, to the contrary it has always been in Mr Hichilema’s best interests to explain himself in detail and not just issue counter-accusations or indeed seek to side-step the issue altogether.
2. I must say that l am happy that Mr Hichilema has, through his lawyers, substantively responded to the three key allegations leveled against him by Honorable Edith Nawakwi regarding the privatization process. Allow me to now give my opinion about each of the three allegations as well as the respective rebuttals by Mr Hichilema.
3. The first allegation was that Mr Hichilema as liquidator of Lima Bank, decided to sale himself one of the Lima Bank assets, being the house along Serval Road in Kabulonga. Such conduct, if true would obviously amount to a conflict of interest. Mr Hichilema’s response is that he bought the Kabulonga house in 1995 and the seller was not Lima Bank, and he goes on to state that Lima Bank was only placed under liquidation in 1997. My view is that that is a fair and reasonable explanation from Mr Hichilema. We shall now await Honorable Edith Nawakwi’s reply to Mr Hichilema’s explanation so that we can subsequently form a conclusion on this particular matter.
4. The second particular allegation was that Mr Hichilema abused his position as an advisor to Government regarding the privatization of Roan Antelope Mining Corporation of Zambia or RAMCOZ in short. Mr Hichilema’s explanation is that he was never involved in the privatization process of RAMCOZ. He further indicates that when RAMCOZ was subsequently placed under receivership, the Receiver Manager was a Mr Christopher Mulenga and not himself. Our view is that, again, this is a fair and reasonable explanation that has been provided on the matter by Mr Hichilema. We now await the reply on this explanation by Honorable Edith Nawakwi. After we get that reply, we can then form our opinion on the culpability or otherwise of Mr Hichilema regarding this particular allegation.
5. The third allegation was that Mr Hichilema as Negotiating Chairman of Intercontinental Hotel in Livingstone abused his position in two ways. Firstly he sold the hotel to Sun International who had put up a much lower bid of $6.5 million, as opposed to selling to higher bidders which included a bid for $26 million, $20 million and $10 million. Sun International was a predominately South African Outfit, although they had registered a subsidiary in Zambia called Sun International Zambia, which is said to have been registered at PACRA in November 1997 and were Mr Hichilema and Senior Chief Mukuni were alleged to be Directors. As Negotiating Chairman, Mr Hichilema is said to have sold the intercontinental hotel to Sun International Zambia around February 1998, almost 3 months after the company was incorporated. Honorable Edith Nawakwi’s allegation in this matter is that Mr Hichilema effectively sold the hotel to himself, which explains why he decided to pick the lower bid of $6.5 million and not higher bids. In his explanation through his lawyers, Mr Hichilema does not deny that he was the Negotiating Chairman in the sale of Intercontinental Hotel Livingstone. He also does not categorically deny that he was a Director of Sun International Zambia at the time that he sold it Intercontinental Hotel. He also does not deny that he decided to sale the hotel at a lower bid price of $6.5 million when higher bids including $26 million were available. Instead, Mr Hichilema’s main defense regarding this particular allegation is that it was done within the law. My take is that unlike the two allegations above, Mr Hichilema has dismally failed to dispel this particular allegation. Even without any reply to his explanation by Honorable Edith Nawakwi, solely based on the allegations themselves and his reply, he is probably guilty as charged.
6. Given the fact that this is a developing matter, and new evidence will continue to unveil to the public domain, both to reassert the allegations and to rebut the allegations, we shall continue to play our role of reviewing such additional information and evidence and give our opinion on where the balance of probabilities is leaning towards. It must be noted that this is not a private matter between Mr Hakainde Hichilema and Honorable Edith Nawakwi. To the contrary, it is a public matter because it involves public assets that were sold during the privatization process. Therefore, we have every right to talk about it and give our opinion on the unveiling developments. We have received plenty of insults from the supporters of Mr Hichilema who feel that we have no right to comment on this matter. However, we wish to assure these supporters that we are not a kind that get intimidated or that jumps to an individual’s defense simply because the allegations might taint an individuals political standing, no. We have only one interest at heart, and that is the national interest. If Mr Hichilema is culpable, then he must be held to account, if he is not, then he must be cleared accordingly. So far, if l was a court, l would acquit him on the first and second count but would convict him on the third count regarding the sell of Intercontinental Hotel in Livingstone.