By Charles Kakoma, UPND Spokesperson

Many people have been wondering why the United Party for National Development (UPND) is still vehemently opposed to the Constitutional Amendment Bill No.10 of 2019. This uncertainty has been brought about by PF propaganda after the Parliamentary Select Committee which was considering Bill 10 produced its report which some people believe addressed the contentious issues contained in the proposed constitutional amendments.

As UPND, our considered opinion is that Bill 10 is still a terrible law that should not see the light of day.

Here is why;

1. The whole process of constitution making is flawed. The current process being employed by the PF government in making amendments to the constitution of Zambia lacks consultation and consensus. The major stakeholders in this process such as the major political parties, Church Mother Bodies, Law Association of Zambia, Non-governmental organisations and the public have not participated in this constitution making process. The major stakeholders refused to participate in the National Dialogue Forum because the process was unconstitutional and infringed on people’s rights. It has been a Patriotic Front (PF) driven constitution making process as if the party in power is making a constitution for PF and not the nation. The resolutions emanating from the National Dialogue Forum were illegitimate and therefore cannot be legislated into law. We also find in the Bill 10 that was presented to Parliament for First Reading that many of the amendments included in the Bill were not even discussed at the National Dialogue Forum. The whole Bill 10 was doctored along the way to Parliament to suit the interests of the PF. The whole process must be taken back to the drawing board and start afresh. As UPND, we are agreeable to start the process where all stakeholders are present and a neutral referee, in this case the Church, is chairing and leading the process . Once the contents have been agreed to, legislation must be put in place to protect the content from manipulation during the process of enactment of the constitution.

2. The second reason why the UPND is opposed to Bill 10 is that in its current form, the Bill that is scheduled to be presented for Second Reading in February 2020 is still the same one that was presented at First Reading stage of the legislative process in Parliament in 2019. In the current Bill 10, the Bill still provides for the re-introduction of deputy ministers, removal of parliamentary oversight over government borrowing, removal of monetary policy from the Bank of Zambia, removal of the election of mayors and council chairpersons directly by the people, removal of retirees from the payroll before their benefits are paid and reduction of the campaign period from 90 days to 60 days during presidential and general elections, amoung many other provisions that are contentious.

During the last seating of parliament, government merely wanted to move a motion to allow them to table the draconian Bill 10 for Second Reading. Although the motion was carried through by a simple majority, the Second Reading stage could not take place because the UPND Members of Parliament, some Independent Members of Parliament and the National Democratic Congress member of parliament walked out of the House, making it impossible to achieve the required two thirds majority at Second Reading stage for the Bill to go through. The government decided to postpone the tabling of Bill 10 for Second Reading to the next session of parliament starting in February this year.

Perhaps, what is confusing people is the difference between Bill 10 and the National Assembly Select Committee Report on Bill 10. After the National Assembly published its report on Bill 10, the PF and its government propaganda machinery started telling lies that the Bill 10 which people had been opposed to had been improved by the National Assembly Select committee to take into account all the concerns of the people.

This is highly deceptive. It is a lie meant to hoodwink the Zambian people to believe that the government has listened to their cries and incorporated their concerns in the constitution and therefore Bill 10 is now acceptable.

The fact of the matter is that Bill 10 has not been amended to take into account the concerns of the people. What the National Assembly Report contains àre recommendations arising from its interaction with some stakeholders it called as witnesses to its Select committee hearings. The Select Committee Report is different from Bill 10.

The Select Committee Report recommendations have not been incorporated in Bill 10. Currently, they remain mere recommendations to the Whole House for consideration. The House can reject most, if not all the recommendations. In my history and experience in the National Assembly of Zambia for 13 years as Member of Parliament, the House used to reject many recommendations of its own committees.

The latest Parliamentary Committee Report which was rejected by the the Whole House was last year when the Committee on Legal Matters recommended for the withdrawal of the National Dialogue Bill because it offended the current constitution and human rights. The PF, using its arrogance of numbers in Parliament bulldozed its way and passed the Bill into law.

Based on past experiences, there is genuine fear and lack of trust that the recommendations of the Select Committee Report can see the light of day.

3. Contentious Clauses Still in Bill 10.
There are many clauses in the current Bill 10 that are unacceptable. We will highlight a few for illustrative purposes.

(A) Re-introduction of Deputy Ministers.

We are vehemently opposed to the reintroduction of deputy ministers in the administration of this country. We believe that they added no value in the past and will not add any value in the future. The deputy ministers are not part of Cabinet and do not deputise the ministers. Whenever the minister is away, another cabinet minister acts in his or her position instead of the deputy minister. In many cases, deputy ministers were just drinking tea, reading newspapers or chatting the whole day if the cabinet minister has not delegated any work to him or her . It did not add any administrative efficiency.

But our most important objection to the reintroduction of deputy ministers is the cost implication. At a time when the economy is on its knees, it is irresponsible and reckless to employ more ministers. We have heard the Chief Government Spokesperson Dora Siliya stating on a paid for programme on Prime T.v. that the reintroduction of deputy ministers will not bring additional costs because the M.Ps who will be appointed as deputy ministers are already drawing government salaries. This is highly deceptive. At the time when deputy ministers were in existence, their salaries were higher than ordinary M.Ps . In addition, government will have to buy motor vehicles for deputy ministers and employ drivers, secretaries and other support staff for the office of deputy ministers. Government will also have to find accommodation or pay housing allowances for deputy ministers. All these conditions of service are not enjoyed by ordinary members of parliament. So, it is a blue lie to tell the Zambian people that the reintroduction of deputy ministers will have no additional cost implications. Stop lying through the teeth, Dora.

(B) Approval of government borrowing.

The country is in a serious financial crisis largely because of the huge foreign debt brought about by unfettered borrowing. The people are suffering because of the huge foreign debt. There is need for the people’s representatives in Parliament to approve the contraction of debt. Why do the PF want to continue borrowing without being checked? They can only be motivated by a sinister motive and that motive is corruption.

(C) Monetary policy.

Bill 10 seeks to remove the power of the Bank of Zambia over monetary policy. We say no to this. No one has complained about the the Central Bank’s conduct on monetary policy. If anything, many international authorities have commended the Bank of Zambia over its handling of monetary policy. What has created the financial crisis is the messed up fiscal policy run by PF cadres at the Ministry of Finance where they have failed to control expenditure.

The proposed amendment seeks to remove the power of the Bank of Zambia to print money but merely monitor the currency . So ,who is going to be printing the currency? The ministry of finance or State House? The argument that the Bank of Zambia will still be responsible for monetary policy and MONITOR the currency is neither here nor there. If cadres at State House or Ministry of Finance have already over printed the money, then we ask the Bank of Zambia to merely monitor? Let us not play with the currency. At one time when Idi Amin of Uganda was told that there was no money to fulfil his expenditures, he ordered for the printing of more money . The result was disastrous inflation for Uganda.

(D Removal of Retirees from payroll.

The current constitution provides for retirees to remain on the payroll until their benefits are fully paid. This is to protect workers from employers who throw away workers in the cold without paying them. The PF government has proposed to remove of this protection of workers in the constitution. UPND is opposed to this proposed amendment because it will result in workers becoming destitutes.

(E) Election of mayors and council chairpersons.

The PF government intends to amend the constitution to remove the provision which requires mayors and council chairpersons to be elected directly by the people in the district.

As UPND, we believe this is retrogressive and goes against the spirit of self governance through local government. The people at the grassroots should decide who should lead them in their local authorities. So far, the mayors and council chairpersons are happy with the current situation where they are directly elected by the people. Let the people decide.

( F) Reduction of Campaign period.

The UPND is opposed to this proposed amendment to reduce the campaign period from 90 days to 60 days. There is no rationale for it. Zambia is a big country. Even the current 90 days is not enough for a presidential candidate to go to every constituency to campaign. It is estimated that there are 117 districts in Zambia now after the reckless creation of new districts. Even assuming that a candidate covers one district per day, he or she can only cover 58 districts in the 60 days allowed under the proposed constitutional amendment. The candidate can only cover half the country in 60 days. Where is the logic?

We also know that even under the current 90days provision, the Electoral Commission of Zambia fails to adequately prepare for the elections resulting in delays in the distribution of election materials . What will happen when the campaign period is reduced? There will be total confusion. We know that PF wants to thrive on confusion to win the next election. We, as UPND, are seriously opposed to electoral confusion. We are aware that PF is already campaigning through ministers touring provinces while putting restrictions on the opposition to campaign. That is why they want ministers to remain in office after the dissolution of Parliament so that they continue to use government resources to campaign.

Conclusion

The current constitution making process is highly flawed. PF should swallow its pride and come back to the negotiating table and agree on the contents of the new constitution. If they decide to arrogantly proceed with the process, it will be an exercise in futility. They should learn their lesson from the failed referendum on the constitution when they refused to separate the referendum from the general elections. We knew that the PF arrogantly refused to listen to the people because they wanted to create opportunities and confusion to ring the election by allowing people without voters cards to vote in the referendum.

Similarly, we are advising the PF government to withdraw completely Bill 10 and allow consensus to be reached through dialogue with major stakeholders. If they arrogantly proceed to table Bill 10 for Second Reading in Parliament, the Bill will flop badly because it will not master the two thirds majority to pass through.

By Prince Ndoyi MMD Youth

We received the news that PF will go to a general conference this year in June/July as announced by their SG Davies Mwila as a resolve by the PF Central Committee. We have also heard that UPND will hold theirs in March this year, while MMD will hold theirs in May, this is good for our democracy. The legacy of our DEMOCRACY cannot be dismissed in explaining the state of the Zambian society today and all political parties must face their own responsibilities in building this democracy.

In the case of PF my almost immediate reaction is that the PF must be commended for strictly adhering to their party constitution in the face of calls by some Copperbelt MPs that the party forgoes the conference because President Lungu was the right and sole choice.

PF as a party on this one has demonstrated leadership on the practice of intraparty democracy, this should equally be applauded by all well-meaning civil society organisations and political activists. They have scored on this one.

Moreso, President Edgar LUNGU as party President has shown bravery to subject his candidature for 2021 before the general membership of his party. It is often said in politics among African leaders that once the incumbent declares candidature, his declaration cannot be challenged. But President Lungu has overcome the temptation to bulldoze his way against a democratic requirement even after the constitutional court cleared his eligibility question that was before it.

President Lungu and the Patriotic Front must be commended for being on the right side of history and setting the right precedence for the growth of our democracy. Democracy especially intra party, is no longer a choice but a constitutional requirement in Article 60 of the 2016 Constitution.

It is in this difficult context in a difficult economic time and a perceived division in PF that the PF and President Lungu have chosen to go to the general conference to face a dual task: to preserve the unity of their party and to remedy the dissatisfaction of a growing proportion of their members through a democratic process.

It is uncommon, and we wish to hear voices encouraging the PF and it’s leadership to make the general conference as open and transparent.

Internal democracy in political parties, also known as intra-party democracy, refers to the level and methods of including party members in the decision making and deliberation within the party structure. Intra-party democracy is usually known to nurture citizens’ political competencies and/or producing more capable representatives which in turn ensures that the party produces better policies and political programs.

Although the view that “parties should practice what they preach” is commonly shared, there are also skeptics who might argue that too much democratization may hinder parties to keep their electoral promises and also dilute the power of a party’s inner leadership.

THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, WITH THE COMING ON OF ARTICLE 60, WILL ANY POLITICAL PARTY THAT HAS NOT HELD A CONVENTION AS REQUIRED BY THEIR CONSTITUTION AND THE REPUBLICAN CONSTITUTION BE ALLOWED TO FILE IN WITH ECZ AND CONTEST 2021?

By Sishuwa Sishuwa

In contrast to the shortage of authentic, consistent heroes in public life, Zambia had a huge surplus of disappointing individuals and institutions in 2019, as the competition for uninspiring conduct grew even fiercer. Indeed, such is the surplus that if we are really serious about diversifying and resuscitating Zambia’s ailing economy, we will do well to consider exporting many of them alongside copper. None of the people and institutions on the list that follows would be missed.

Given Lubinda: Two things summed up the changed character of Minister of Justice, Given Lubinda, in 2019. The first was the way he treated former state employees who regularly camped at the Ministry of Justice to press for their pension benefits. Instead of responding to their plight with sympathy and understanding, he came out as callous and uncaring, dismissing them as “a very big disturbance to people who come to the Ministry of Justice” and inflicting underserved praise on himself for “allowing those people to have their meetings at the offices”. The second and most disturbing was Lubinda’s absolute willingness to serve as the handmaiden of corrupting Zambia’s constitution, exemplified by his role in the creation of the deplorable Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 10, whose horrific implications appear to be beyond his own understanding. There is no doubt that the current constitution has lacunas that need to be sorted out, but instead of confining himself to correcting these innocuous gaps, Lubinda saw the opportunity as a platform for smuggling into the national law provisions that seek to secure the PF’s hold on power and consolidate Lungu’s creeping dictatorship. His earlier support for the National Dialogue Forum, a disgraced body whose creation was born out of coercion and threats, demonstrated his moral depravity without equivocation.

Zambia’s politicians appear to be so principled when outside power. Once in power, it is as if they are suddenly bitten by a tick that corrosively impairs their judgement. Few political leaders illustrate this tragic turn than the former United Party for National Development (UPND) Kabwata Member of Parliament. Many Zambians will recall Lubinda as an opposition politician committed to combating abuse, injustice and corruption. Since assuming his position as Minister of Justice, where he could make a real difference on the issues he was apparently so passionate about, Lubinda has lost his voice. There is very little he won’t do now in furthering the very ignoble things that the former Lubinda would have died opposing. Whatever changed and made Given Lubinda forget his principles, I am hoping that life’s many trials and temptations do not turn me into someone like him – a person I will no longer recognise someday. None of us is immune to that malady. Perhaps what is important is the capacity to sit down and reflect whenever we get a chance. It is those quiet moments that remind us of who we are and what we stand for. Also helpful is having a set of friends who are loyal enough to slap us back into reality whenever we stray so that we are not completely lost or end up like Lubinda.

Tutwa Ngulube: When a community rots, there are individuals whose form of public conduct exemplifies the decay; those who, without shame, compete to outshine everyone in attracting the attention of ‘the master’ at the centre, who rise to become the most vociferous defenders of much that is wrong about a political administration, and whose utterances most disgust the healthy segment of the country’s population. Tutwa Ngulube, based on his 2019 actions, moved a step closer to reaching the level of this cohort. Many Zambians now know Ngulube for many wrong reasons, including as a lawyer who is prepared to undermine the constitution for the benefit of his political interests, not public interest. His outbursts against retired Archbishop of Lusaka Telesphore Mpundu and his grovelling defence for Bill 10 were truly disgusting.

The most dangerous thing about Ngulube is that he clothes his views, however appalling, in formal education and legal training. He does not hesitate to remind anyone that he is a lawyer, a lawmaker and a man of great education or understanding – so some people actively listen when he speaks. The conduct of individuals like Ngulube is partly responsible for nurturing the development of terrible character traits in public leaders. Lungu, for instance, may have some self-doubt about his capacity to perform the job of president, but if he hears lawyers or educated people heaping praise on his ‘legendary competence’ or ‘exceptional leadership qualities’, it is easy to see how the content of his character may worsen. It is worth remembering that even Adolf Hitler, Charles Taylor and Idi Amin had choirmasters of praise who, as Ngulube is doing to Lungu, emboldened their dictatorial behaviour.

It may be that Ngulube, who is facing strong competition from Kabwe Mayor Prince Chileshe for adoption as the PF’s 2021 candidate for Kabwe Central constituency, may have reasoned that adulation for the party leader would aid his re-adoption chances.

Inonge Wina: Outside politics, Inone Wina was a dignified decent human being, a forthright and upstanding civic actor outraged by abuse, injustice, lies and corruption. In politics, particularly since her ascent to the position of Vice-President, she has retained the company of all these vices and turned out to be the Queen Mother of Zambia’s tragic march to backwardness. In 2019, she remained so silent in the face of abuse, injustice, corruption and the shrinking democratic space in the country that one may think her conscience has been stolen. Rather than advancing integrity and the cause of progress, she proved that she has no problem serving as the handmaiden to the birth of authoritarianism in Zambia. What would Inonge Wina’s former self think of her now?

I would really want to meet and ask Wina what happened to her. Was civil society or civic engagement for her simply a route out of poverty, a mere job to earn nshima and keep herself busy, one whose values or ideals she did not actually believe in? Where are her convictions? The Wina of before was a woman admired by many, and a breath of fresh air worth listening and talking to. The Wina of today is indistinguishable from Lungu and no longer respected by most. To be fair, though, she has been consistent since 2014. In Lungu’s disorderly rise to the party presidency, she was at the centre of it. In fact, Wina can be credited for the inglorious honour of having effectively bequeathed the Lungu presidency to Zambia, alongside Kelvin Bwalya Fube, that judge now on the Constitutional Court bench, and Tutwa Ngulube.

Edgar Lungu: In 2019, President Lungu, who is very good at pretending that he is a selfless and humble leader, did all the wrong things that it is almost impossible to think of other wrongdoings that he can do this year, but he is such a talented wrongdoer that he will imagine other wrongdoings that we have not thought of. The President was the ultimate failure or most disappointing public official of the year. He, treating the judiciary with absolute contempt, denounced an unfavourable judgement from the Constitutional Court that found that he had illegally kept ministers in power following the dissolution of Parliament. He, pledging to go it alone, vowed to ignore the voice of Zambians opposed to the proposed constitutional changes. He, imagining himself as the employer of everyone and in clear violation of the law, unilaterally downgraded the employment conditions of non-unionised civil servants. He, having a blissful life in State House, remained totally indifferent to the plight of many, in the midst of mass unemployment and a crippling energy crisis, including the starving millions of Zambians whose predicament he refused to declare a national crisis. Lungu is at the apex of our slide to dictatorship, a violation of our independence and democracy.

The most dangerous thing about Lungu is that he is extinguishing whatever illusions about democracy we thought we had. For human beings to live well in a community together, there must be a set of rules, such as the constitution and by which every individual is bound, to regulate the behaviour of the members of that community towards one another. Taking Zambia as his personal property, Lungu has consistently shown his contempt for these rules; that he is not bound by the rule of law or the constitution. Since his ascension to power, he has effectively destroyed the vestiges of autonomy in all state institutions outside the executive arm of government for the purposes of establishing an authoritarian regime and a slide into a fearful dictatorship. We will do well to begin to see Lungu as the ultimate successor of our historical slide towards a totalitarian state or the rise of a totalitarian person in the office of president.

Likando Kalaluka: The primary job of the Attorney General is to alert the government to the possible violations of the law before they occur. At this singular task, Likando Kalaluka failed terribly in 2019. When President Lungu, for instance, illegally slashed the salaries of non-unionised civil servants without their consent, or when he demonstrated his contempt for the judgement of the Constitutional Court on the case of ministers, it reflected very poorly on the government’s chief legal advisor, who is also a key member of Cabinet. Every government decision and document that has legal implications must go through the Attorney General. It is only in rare cases where a court has to intervene to interpret the law. Where the violation of the law by the executive is consistent, it makes the position of Attorney General totally superfluous. If Kalaluka has any self-respect, why has he not resigned since Lungu appears to have no regard for his professional advise? Or is it Kalaluka himself who is simply incompetent at his job?

Zambia Police: In 2019, the Zambia Police Service enhanced its growing reputation as a PF militia funded by the taxpayers. Three most disappointing things about the police stood out last year. The first was the arrest of national asset Chama Fumba, alias Pilato, for the crime of exercising his constitutional freedom of assembly in Livingstone where he was training youths on how to effectively participate in governance. (To demonstrate the absurdity or defectiveness of the charge: how does police justify the arrest of a citizen in a church building, which is exempt from the requirements of the Public Order Act? How do they arrest a single person for unlawful assembly?) The second was the consistent failure to stop the violent behaviour of machete-wielding or gun-trotting PF cadres – be it during the beating of Kabwe council workers protesting against delayed payment of salaries or the fatal political violence that preceded the Roan constituency and Kaoma council by-elections. The third was the constant violation of the opposition’s right to assemble and conduct political meetings or rallies. All these actions underscored the institutional deterioration, loss of autonomy and politicisation of the police.

The core operational duties of a professional police service is to maintain law and order, protect members of the public and their property, prevent the commission of offences and to bring the offenders to justice. To effectively execute these responsibilities, the police must possess the authority, widely recognised by the public, as the lawful and rightful body to enforce them and to do so in a professional and impartial manner that builds public confidence in the institution and helps improve the quality of life for all citizens. It is precisely this authority that has deserted the police in today’s Zambia.

The public, rather than viewing it as an apolitical and professional body that is out to protect individual liberties of all Zambians regardless of their political affiliation, now regards the police as nothing more than a frontline force of the elites in power and their supporters, out to maintain peace violently, terrorise citizens, and obstruct the exercise of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms in order to prevent political competition for the benefit of Lungu. It does not help that the police are under the command of a Minister of Home Affairs who, in 2019, said some of the most irrational things imaginable, such as threatening to arrest Hakainde Hichilema for being confident of winning next year’s election. The net result is what we have today: an institution so bereft of public respect that it is largely a matter of discretion to refer to it as a service. More disturbingly, a two-tier system of policing has emerged under Kampyongo’s ministerial watch: one for PF leaders and cadres who are at liberty to do as they please, including beating, wounding and possibly killing anyone, and another for the rest of us who can be arrested even for what the PF thinks we are thinking, are denied their rights to assemble, and whose individual liberties are constantly trampled upon at will.

Geoffrey Lungwangwa and Teddy Kasonso: UPND Nalikwanda MP Geoffrey Lungwangwa and his 70-year old Solwezi West counterpart Teddy Kasonso defied their party’s directive to all its MPs that they should walk out when Bill 10 is restored to the order paper in Parliament for second reading. Lungwangwa in particular went on to make two ridiculous claims in support of the deplorable proposed constitutional amendment, which, for a person of his standing and level of exposure, was most disappointing. First, the former University of Zambia deputy vice-chancellor claimed that most of the terrible proposed clauses in the Bill have been addressed by the report of the Select Parliamentary Committee that was appointed to scrutinise it. Second, the former Cabinet minister under the Rupiah Banda administration asserted that having been a member of the Select Committee, it would be inappropriate for him to walk out or even oppose the Bill. On both accounts, Lungwangwa was either deliberately misleading Zambians, unforgivably ignorant, or was lying on a fundamental issue – and whichever it is, neither will do.

The Select Committee’s report has little bearing on Bill 10, which will soon be presented in Parliament unchanged, and is effectively useless as it is neither debated nor binding on anyone. The report is merely advisory and can be ignored by the executive branch of government, as many previous reports have been. In addition, MPs who were part of the Select Committee appointed to scrutinise Bill 10 are absolutely free to oppose and vote against it. This is because there is a clear distinction in procedure between reports presented to Parliament by committees for adoption and reports on bills. As Speaker Patrick Matibini previously ruled in a similar matter, “MPs who vote contrary to the recommendations of their Committee reports on Bills are not out of order. When a Bill comes up for second reading, the motion before the House is whether or not the Bill should be read the 2nd time. The report of the Committee that considered the Bill is not brought to the House for approval, but is merely used to aid members as they debate the Bill”.

One hopes that Lungwangwa and Kasonso will this year oppose Bill 10 when it is finally presented for second reading. Ordinarily, when an individual chooses to belong to a political party, they choose to abide by the rules and regulations of that organisation. Like PF MPs, Lungwangwa and Kasonso are however free to break ranks with their party on certain subjects, especially on a crucial matter like the constitution, but they should only do so in instances where breaking ranks is in the greater interest of the public.

For the year 2020, my message to ALL Zambians is simple: we commit the greatest crime by remaining silent or doing nothing to stop our country’s slide into open tyranny and authoritarian rule. We have only one country to which we all belong, and which belongs to all of us. We have a duty and responsibility to stop the current rot and prevent our descent into a darkness we may never recover from. Time is running out, fast