By Anthony Kasonde
The last few days have left many wondering whether April fools day has come early. There has been a complete meltdown in Zambian politics with many left wondering whether the men at the helm of Zambian politics and who are at least 50 years are behaving like spoilt children.
It all kicked off when former Republican President Frederick Chiluba held a press conference or rather tell it all conference. Dr Chiluba stated at the said conference that he had been attacked and insulted a lot by, among other people, the Patriotic Front President Michael Sata. Dr Chiluba claimed that he had remained silent but now he felt compelled to respond. In fact, he went on to state that he would in future fight back in the media and legally. Simply put, the show has just begun so sit back and enjoy family guy folks.
Needless to say, Dr Chiluba had a go at Mr Sata on morals and on Mr Hakainde Hichilema the UPND chief for showing lack of leadership. In between, Dr Chiluba threw some jabs on others including Mr Wynter Kabimba the PF Secretary General. Naturally, Mr Sata, in King cobra style, had to bite back. He responded almost immediately and after throwing a few punches of his own did what Mr Sata does best rushed to the law courts claiming defamation of character.
The people, on the other hand, have stood by in utter shock wondering what has gone wrong. This is not just politics by people who have been political foes all their lives. This is politics by people who stood side by side for 10 full years. Mr Sata was Dr Chiluba’s right hand man almost through out his 2 term tenure at Plot 1. So is it right for people to condemn these people as behaving like children when there are pressing national issues that need solving? Do we need these petty squabbles at this stage of Zambian politics or should these two tired folks simply disappear from the political stage? Many will shout in the affirmative to these questions but is that really simple?
Chiluba’s Role
Dr Chiluba is supposed to have retired from active politics, not that Zambians do not want him to take part in politics. He can and is entitled to politic and take up any position he wants except the Republican Presidency since the Constitution limits the maximum term to two. That said, the Zambian law (which Dr Chiluba created or seemed to sustain for selfish gain) seem to punish those Presidents who do not shut up after serving their terms. In other words, and these threats were used by Dr Chiluba against Mr Kenneth Kaunda, benefits would be stopped from being given to such a person since in the eyes of the law he would not be taken to have retired but be assumed to be in active politics. It is for this reason, and this reason alone, that you will hear Dr Chiluba stating that he is not in active politics but merely speaking as an ordinary citizen.
However, and as stated above, Dr Chiluba should have done more during his tenure to remove such a draconian rule which, to say the least, goes directly against not just the spirit but also the letter of the Constitution. A President who has served his tenure must be allowed to receive his benefits whether he continues in politics or not. Only when a President is impeached or removed due to misconduct must he lose his entitlement to benefits. This is the law applied in most democratic societies and this is why we see former US Presidents campaigning and being involved in politics as if their lives depended on it.
Therefore, there should be no problems with Dr Chiluba talking politics or speaking his mind as and when he feels like. The problem comes not from him talking about the morality (or lack of it) of Mr Sata but by how he acquired such information. Dr Chiluba seemed to boast about it when he sated that he was the Republican President for 10 years and during this period he had information about his Ministers. Hello, State Security Act anyone?
Dr Chiluba would have been given information about his Ministers and/or otherwise to enable him discharge his duties in the best interests of the country. He was not entitled to use it after for his personal use as he appears to be doing. Dr Chiluba may argue that it is not top secret since it does not endanger the security of the country but the rationale is that it falls under that category and he swore to protect and preserve such laws. In this regard, Dr Chiluba blundered big time and this should have been brought out as a bigger picture rather than focussing on what people regard as trivialities.
Dr Chiluba may be enjoying his freedom but he may find digging a very big prison for himself if he is not careful with his mouth. The State Security Act or Official Secret Act as it is popularly known has limited defences and to say that it is archaic and unwanted is an understatement. But as usual, Dr Chiluba did not see most of these things as President and he missed his opportunity on the big stage.
That said, and as stated above, Mr Sata was a top man in Dr Chiluba’s cabinet for his entire tenure of office. So if Dr Chiluba as he boasts knew about Mr Sata’s inadequacies, why did he retain him for the whole period of his reign. And if he did not find anything wrong with this information he is feeding the public, why should he expect them to find something wrong with it?
Is Sata Answerable?
It seems normal to conclude that the information Dr Chiluba had on Mr Sata was not serious enough to preclude him (Mr Sata) from serving his country or so Dr Chiluba thought. However, now that the country knows about these facts must it think like Dr Chiluba did then (and accept them as irrelevant or should they matter? Mr Sata and his die hard supporters would want us to think that they are non issues and therefore must be set aside and move forward with real issues. The problem with politicians is that they seem to think that they know what the electorate thinks and what they want and only they (the politicians) have the divine right of interpreting these wishes to the media. Well, they are wrong.
In this age, the world seems to be moving to an era where morals are swept aside as being irrelevant to people with whatever roles or influence. How many times have we heard comments about transgressions from people like Tiger Woods, John Terry, Ashley Cole or even John Edwards brushed aside as being irrelevant as long as these people perform? Even the respected democracy with long established decades of political morals, Great Britain had to literally push its Northern Ireland First Minister to resign after his wife’s extra marital affair was brought to the fore. It was not him but he succumbed.
So why should Mr Sata who is aspiring for high office be spared from scrutiny? There is a popular saying that to those whom much is given much is expected. So Mr Sata should be prepared to be questioned and there is nothing childish about it. The Zambian people are not prepared to surrender their most cherished property (Plot 1) and see it turned into a DNA centre with a myriad number of women claiming to have a relationship with the President. Now that will surely distract the Head of State from concentrating on real issues affecting the people.
Therefore, rather than brush them aside and confirm casually that he is not married to the lady in question but has fathered two children with her. Mr Sata, so far as he is determined to run for the highest office, must face the issue head on. Explain the relationship, if at all, and, most importantly, what his relationship is to the two children. This is cardinal for various reasons but chiefly it will show how Mr Sata views and treats the women (the largest majority voter in Zambia) and secondly how he hopes to resolve the issue of street kids and abandoned children by absent fathers. Therefore rather than be ignored as non issues these are important factors in deciding the kind of person a country wants to be its leader. Values even though not inscribed among the requirements in the written Constitution are just as important as the requirements needed by the country’s supreme Act.
The other equally important issue for Mr Sata to address is his apparent impotence in the English language. I subscribe to the view that people of whatever background must be allowed to compete for whatever political office they feel capable to run. This right must be observed and respected suffice it to say that the issue of Presidential candidates being required to be degree holders must not be entrenched in our law. That said, it is fair to say, human beings have a unique sieving system that naturally does the job. So if a person does not meet the natural standards set by the majority of the people, he or she gets voted out of the system.
However, Mr Sata does not seem to have a problem with speaking English and his team and he will argue that speaking is the crucial element for the President since the writing is done by his staff and instructions can be given by way of dictation. Fair point, I must say. But by even making such an argument, Mr Sata would be conceding what must be a very embarrassing revelation for him. It may also cost him some votes because some people may object to having a President (a supposed role model) who has problems with his writing skills. In this day and age and with the advent of email, people may be concerned that if that dreaded 2 am call comes up and he is required to send a very urgent and important email a misplacement of a coma may just lead to a mistaken instruction leading to disastrous results. It is therefore in Mr Sata’s favour to clarify this issue to his advantage. I have no doubt in my mind that this allegation is at best baseless and at worst malicious.
Is Team Sata Contaminated?
Even though Dr Chiluba meant this to be battle between him and Mr Sata, he has conveniently brought in other parties to aid his arguments. Whether this is fair or not can only be ascertained by whether the allegations made are factual and in the public interests or not. The case of Archbishop Tresford Mpundu, for instance cannot be ignored as not being in the public interests. It is a fact that the lady in question is the Archbishop’s sister, a fact that she has two children with Mr Sata, a fact that she is an adult who is able to make her decisions whether the Archbishop approves or not. In fact, he need not even know about it.
However, the main issues here are that the Archbishop has a big role not just with the Church but with political parties in Zambia as a leader of the Catholic Church in Zambia. The other issue is that because of the existence of not one but two children, the Archbishop would be aware of Mr Sata’s role in her sister’s relationship. The fact that Mr Sata accepted this fact quickly further fortifies the argument that this issue has not been hidden to the lady’s family.
Taking all these facts into account, it was prudent and imperative for the Archbishop to have declared interests so as to avoid conflict at a later stage. Make no mistake about it, the Archbishop may have been professional in his duties and maybe even harder on Mr Sata but that is not the point. The point is, and it is not rocket science, that you must play fair: say to the other participants what is crucial for them to know before you engage them. If they agree notwithstanding the confession then so be it. The Archbishop made a mistake, some might say unwittingly looking at his record, but nevertheless was still a mistake and he must apologise for it.[quote]
Mr Wynter Kabimba, the PF Secretary General has responded to Dr Chiluba in a way that leaves readers in no doubt of his perception and regard (or lack of) for Dr Chiluba. However, considering the fact he was out of the country at the time of giving his response and it came after his boss, Mr Sata, had reacted to Dr Chiluba’s speech, it is rather unfortunate that he made some comments which might scare away the votes the PF badly need.
Mr Kabimba in boasting about the time it took him to do his law degree took a jibe at Dr Chiluba who only got his at a very mature age. Mr Kabimba whether knowingly or not was in fact having a go at adults who obtain degrees past their youth age. This is wrong and regrettable and runs straight into the PF manifesto on education. Surely, there are various reasons why people are not able to complete their studies in the way that Mr Kabimba was boasting of. Factors such as money, family issues, culture etc may all hinder a person’s development. However, when they later feel like advancing their education, people in authority must not pour scorn on them.
Mr Kabimba further insulted the Zambian people when he stated that any person or animal could have won the 1991 elections in Zambia. This is tantamount to saying Zambians are docile who could have voted for a frog if it had stood in those elections. Whereas Mr Kabimba is entitled to hold such an opinion, as a very senior person of the largest opposition in the country, it is a very dull, irrational and stupid statement to make. Mr Kabimba needs to be reminded that Dr Chiluba did not just come from Ndola and put himself on national elections. No, he had to go through the MMD primaries, a party that he did not form. The architects of the party were Akashambatwa Lewanika, Dean Mungomba and Derrick Chitala to name a few. Dr Chiluba was invited in and was chairman of mobilisation. The Late Arthur Wina was chairman of the party and did contest the Presidency along with Dr Chiluba and others. He won these elections and hence became a sponsored candidate of the MMD.
Mr Kabimba can question Dr Chiluba’s claim of being the anointed one but he cannot question the credibility Dr Chiluba had in 1991. That plus the problems the country had made him carry the day against the once untouchable Kenneth Kaunda. However, events in Zimbabwe should serve as a lesson to Mr Kabimba and appreciate that taking over power from a sitting President and especially a President who has ruled since independence is never an easy thing and certainly something that requires more than a mere animal to do it.
Mr Kabimba did raise some valid questions to which Dr Chiluba should answer. Dr Chiluba asked Mr Sata questions and he in turn has been asked questions so he must answer them so the Zambian people can judge. Having a selective memory and only addressing issues in his favour will not help Dr Chiluba to redeem himself, if at all.
The issue that saddens most people most is when these politicians speak without thinking. Just what does it mean when Mr Kabimba says that Dr Chiluba would have been in jail if Levy Mwanawasa was alive. Is this not tarnishing the name and legacy of Dr Mwanawasa? It seems a normal sweeping statement to make but when you analyse it, it appears to be suggesting that Dr Mwanawasa did not respect the independence of the judiciary and hence would have prevailed on the Judge to convict Dr Chiluba at whatever cost. I do not think that is fair on Dr Mwanawasa although it is fair to say he may have handled the issue of the appeal differently. But suggesting that the judgement given by an impartial judge was somehow going to change if Dr Mwanawasa was alive is having a go at the judiciary and this is the same judiciary Mr Kabimba’a boss has rushed to and has used to safeguard his rights indeed the same judiciary that he will aim to work with if he is elected to power.
Is HH The Winner In This Debate?
Dr Chiluba took a swipe at the UPND President, Mr Hakainde Hichileme and questioned his readiness for power when he appears to be a person who is not able to protect the whole citizenry. This call echoes what the Deputy Republican President, Mr George Kunda, alleged a few days earlier.
Therefore, with a lot of people complaining about this whole episode, it appears that Mr Hichilema did himself a favour by refusing to be drawn into the issues. This in many eyes will set him aside as a statesman who is able to rise above what is petty squabbles engulfing the nation. Others, have even gone further to pour the same admiration for the current President Rupiah Banda as a winner. Essentially, for the same reasons, the argument is that since he has not indulged in this filthy debate that is being conducted in the media, he as shown maturity.
The arguments are particularly encouraging for Team HH in particular since he was mentioned in Dr Chiluba’s speech and naturally a response from him was expected. Is it therefore a done deal that HH has come through this unbruised?
I think Dr Chiluba has a point so far as HH has continued not to clarify this issue. It is not in dispute that HH was a senior partner at Grant Thornton at the time the money in issue was alleged to have been paid. The charge alleged that when the money in question was paid it did not come through the Receiver as expected. Now all HH needs to clarify is whether his firm did receive that money and whom it was paid to. HH was not being asked to say things to favour or disfavour Dr Chiluba…just the plain fact. Dr Chiluba alleges that this was not done.
Now HH has an obligation to respond to this issue and this issue only because it is important. Again, as a person vying for the top job, you must show that you are able to protect and defend all Zambians regardless of political affiliation, tribe or status. We have already had a situation where a former President willy nilly handed over an innocent Zambian to the Americans just because this person had previously visited a right place at the wrong time. The man spent donkey years at Guantanamo Bay as a terrorist suspect before being freed without charge. It is normal to speculate that had our Zambian Government insisted on seeing hard evidence like other countries demanded, the pour soul would not have languished in those deplorable conditions for long.
Therefore, if it is seen that HH has no quality to protect all Zambians regardless, and at whatever costs, then it is hard to imagine how Zambians will trust him on this issue. They say silence amounts to an admission, HH therefore will be better advised to clarify this issue for the electorate even if it does not satisfy Dr Chiluba’s wishes.
Therefore, the events of the past few days on the Zambian political stage though regrettable have brought forth issues that need to be debated so that the electorate is fully informed and can make an informed decision particularly since the elections are only next year. However, the politicians have led us to this stage by rather strange and unfortunate circumstances and want to drag us back on the pretext that it is childish behaviour and there are other pertinent issues to be discussed. I ask the question, who is fooling who?
