By Kombe Mataka
JUSTICE minister Mulambo Haimbe says investigative wings will have to prove that there is a prima facie case against former president Edgar Lungu for the government to seek a vote from members of parliament to have his immunity removed.
Featuring on Hot FM’s Beyond the Border programme, Haimbe said there would be no scared cow.
“The investigative agencies have to prove that there is a prima facie case, a case worth taking to parliament for consideration. Before that happens, it would be witch hunt to talk about removing the immunity,” he told programme presenter Kwangu Liwewe on Thursday.
“Also, as things are done, people buy-in will also be gotten. So, I will understand the extent of investigation that has been made if we get to that point. I know certainly that the law enforcement agencies are leaving no stone unturned. There will be no sacred cow, even against ourselves. Right now, even as we are in government, we are aware that they will not spare us if we go astray; they are doing their work. “
Haimbe said the debate on Lungu’s immunity should only arise when tangible work has been done towards investigations.
“If it comes out that they have a case worthy of brining to parliament, at that point it will be considered. We have got so much to do than focus the attention of ourselves collectively in an individual in terms of the debate of whether or not to remove his immunity. That debate can only be informed when objective work has been done and indeed it has been found that there was probable cause to take the former president down that route,’’ Haimbe said further.
‘’As for now the people of Zambia are hungry, youths out there need jobs. That’s where we are focused, so the debate will come to a logical conclusion in a not-so-distant future. The law enforcement have independence and we leave them to do what they need to do.”
And Haimbe said the UPND wanted a clear separation between government and the party.
He said so far, the government has shown that distinction.
“Government or executive functions versus the aspirations of the party are separate and distinct. Yes, the political party is the vehicle by the which government was formed and the manifesto is contained in the party constitution. The manifesto informs government policy but then in terms of operations, the party cannot overreach into government and dictate how government functions,’’ he explained.
‘’We as Cabinet operate collectively and the Head of State giving policy guidelines, unlike what we saw in the past. There is a distinct line and the two must be separated. We have actually shown that we gained a lot of unpopularity within the party. Just to show you a typical example that there is skin in the game, very recently our top youth leaders faced the wrath of the law in terms of an activity they conducted which was not within the confines of the law in Luapula Province.”
Haimbe added: It is a principle that we want to set, painful as it is. We must move away from what we have seen in the past. There is no special way of dealing with our own. When misconduct was alleged against the Western Province PS (immediate past), you will note that he has been replaced.”
Meanwhile, Haimbe said government had estimated a K40 million expenditure for the initial Constitution making progress.
“In doing our scope, the estimated cost that we have come up with looks somewhere in the range of K40 million for us to be able to do the entire process outside of the actual referendum. The consultation with the people, provincial stakeholders meeting; that is subject to whether the body that will be put in place to review the Consultation takes that (amount) as its cost as well,’’ he said.
‘’It might be more, it might be less but for purposes of taking that important step of starting the process, our estimates are in the range of K40 million over and above the K5million that is set aside in the budget. So, it will actually be K45 million.”
He said at the end of the review process, government wanted to see a constitution that would stand the test of time.
Haimbe however cautioned that government would not own the process.
“We want to see a constitution that stands the test of time and we are saying we are committed to taking what people want to see in the Constitution. Unfortunately, the proof of the pudding can only be in the eating. From the perspective of political will which has been a challenge in the past, we are saying we have the political will to ensure this is done and properly,’’ Haimbe affirmed.
‘’That is the intention, going forward, that government would simply facilitate and let the key stakeholders run with the process. This is not a process that government must own alone.’’
Haimbe appealed to opposition members of parliament to avoid politicising the process.
“The amendments could be of such a nature that they would result in a holistic few or they could just be certain provisions that would be amendments. But looking at our Constitution now, I believe there is necessity to look at it from page one to the very last page and do a historic view. We are looking at Part 3 (Bill of Rights) as well. We intend to look at the Bill of Rights so that we can have a set of justiciable rights put in there,” he said.
“What has happened with regards to the Public Order Act is that the approval had been given in principle for several pieces of legislation including the Public Order Act to go under review and possible re- enactment. But then the Acts, when they were looked at again by the line ministries, there was a decision that they all need to be looked at again to ensure that they are aligned with the policy direction that the UPND has taken. There was actually a Public Order Bill that has been in existence but it does not meet some of the requirements. So, we decided we would have a review again and take additional stakeholder views before we could table it.’’
On the cyber law which the UPND said they would amend while they were in opposition, Haimbe said the matter could not been re-looked at because it was a subject of active litigation.
“Chapter One Foundation, prior to elections, put up an action in court challenging the constitutionality of provisions in the Cyber Security Act, and so until the court process is concluded in one way or the other, we cannot talk about taking it off. We are also looking at the possibility of sorting these matters out of the court and see whether we can agree that we do away with some things,’’ said Haimbe.