Hichilema has lost State Power-Wynter Kabimba

Hichilema has lost State Power-Wynter Kabimba

…the competing power-centres to Hichilema are projecting religious, regional, tribal and ethnic interests…

Amb.Emmanuel Mwamba analyses Wynter Kabimba’s Letter

According to Wynter Kabimba SC, President Hakainde Hichilema has lost State Power to undefined forces and Kabimba is advocating for Hichilema to institute immediate tougher or stern measures to reclaim it.

“Little is done when many command. There’s no commander among equals, (Zyembela
beelene.)” he nudges Hichilema to take central power.

This false narrative, made out of fear of the unkown, will embolden Hichilema to further clampdown on political opponents and critics, resort to more draconian and repressive tools, and violate rights and freedoms of citizens especially freedom of speech, expression, right to hold opinions and may spawn major crackdown against the media.

Already, by his lackeys he has appointed, Hichilema has total control of Parliament, Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) and the Judiciary and he has diluted or erased the autonomy and independence of democratic, oversight institutions and agencies.

He is violating human rights, he is engaged in constitutional adulteration to enable a total individual power grab of the state.

We have a dictatorship and tyrany in full flight.

But Kabimba says its not enough!

Below is Kabimba’s write-up.

Is the State Under Siege?

Wynter M. Kabimba, SC, ODS

The return to multiparty democracy in 1991 brought a great deal of relief to Zambians who
experienced the excesses of the One-Party State rule.

Democracy meant hope and freedom for all.

It also promised a stable society in which social and
economic progress would thrive without let or hindrance.

But above all this, most of us looked
forward to a functioning State as as the wic overall centre of power and good governance.

However, what not remotely anticipated was the gradual emergence of other power-centres
which would heavily compete with the State in an equaled manner and with a clear agenda to
render the State almost dysfunctional.

It is a common historical phenomenon that power is always contested. But, in a democracy. the
people give their power to their elected representatives.

They give them a mandate to exercise it
on their behalf and also in their interest.

And, therefore, any other group of citizens, however,
noble their intentions cannot and should not claim to represent the people more than the men and
women the people voted for to run the affairs of State with the president at the head of State power
structures.

This does not, however, mean that the church, traditional authorities, opposition
political parties and civil society organization are irrelevant or that they have no role to play in
the affairs of State.

What they cannot do or should not be allowed to do is to act like separatc or
parallel state entities in a power-sharing arrangement with the elected representatives of the people
and the State.

These unelected entities are all subordinate to the State. Whereas they may claim to represent their
constituencies, they lack the legal mandate in a democracy to claim the same authority which the State commands.

To purport to do so is to sow seeds of anarchy in a democratic society.

The early signs of the State’s loss of its hold-on power is when the competing power-centres start projecting religious, regional, tribal and ethnic interests to promote and preserve personal or narrow group interests over and above national unity and identity.

These are smoldering fires to
which the State can only turn a blind eye and deafs ears at great cost to its mandate and the surviyal of the nation-state.

Let me say with an instructive Dutch proverb that, “Little is done when many command”.

There is an equivalent in my mother tongue, “there’s no commander among equals, (Zyembela
beelene.)