THE American Bar Association Centre for Human rights has asked the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of Judges to urgently intervene the decision by the Zambian Judiciary to bar constitutional lawyer John Sangwa, State Counsel, from appearing before any court in the country.

In a letter, Centre director Michael Pates requested the United Nations to further urge the Zambian government to ensure lawyers are free from intimidation and retaliation, including arbitrary suspension and disciplinary measures.

“Dear Mr. Diego García-Sayán ,the Center is gravely concerned that the decision taken by the Zambian judiciary to bar Mr. Sangwa from appearing before all courts pending the resolution of the complaint of professional misconduct submitted to the Law Association of Zambia, is tantamount to a suspension without affording Mr. Sangwa his due process rights. The Center is further concerned that Mr. Sangwa’s suspension is in relation to his public criticism of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment ) Bill [No. 10] 2019…where he raises several concerns including that the Bill gives the President unfettered powers. Under international law and in compliance with international standards governing the independence of the legal profession, lawyers may not be arbitrarily suspended from the practice of law nor experience retaliation for fulfilling their professional obligations or expressing their opinions without affording him the fundamental right to be heard, as recognized under regional and international standards,” Pates stated in his letter.

“The United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers specifically states that ‘[n]o court or administrative authority before whom the right to counsel is recognized shall refuse to recognize the right of a lawyer to appear before it for his or her client unless that lawyer has been disqualified in accordance with national law and practice and in conformity with these principles.’ The U.N Basic Principles further state that ‘charges or complaints made against lawyers in their professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and fairly under appropriate procedures. Lawyers shall have the right to a fair hearing, including the right to be assisted by a lawyer of their choice’. The ABA in its Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (ABA Model Rules) has similarly echoed international standards affording a lawyer who is subject to discipline for breaches of professional misconduct, the right to due process which includes fair notice of the charges, right to counsel, right to cross-examine witnesses, right to present arguments to the adjudicators, right of appeal; and right to subpoena and discovery.”

He stated that immediate suspension of lawyers should only be in exceptional cases.

“Immediate suspensions of lawyers from the bar should only be in exceptional cases, and, even then, the disciplinary body should make a reasonable attempt to provide the lawyer with notice. The Code of Professional Conduct for Counsel before the International Criminal Court has stated that, in exceptional cases, where the alleged misconduct is of such a nature as to seriously prejudice the interests of justice, the Commissioner may lodge an urgent motion with the Chamber before which the counsel is appearing, so that it may, as appropriate, declare a temporary suspension of such counsel,” Pates stated. “Likewise, the ABA’s Model Rules provide that only where alleged misconduct poses an immediate threat to the public or the administration of justice, may a lawyer be immediately suspended from the practice of law, pending a final determination of the ultimate discipline to be imposed. The Model Rules also provide that interim suspension may be appropriate when the lawyer’s continuing conduct is causing or is likely to cause serious injury to a client or the public. For example, where a lawyer abandons the practice of law or is engaged in an ongoing conversion of trust funds. Where immediate interim suspension is granted, the ABA Model Rules provides that on [two] days’ notice, a lawyer suspended in terms of an interim suspension, may appear and move for dissolution or modification of the order of suspension and the matter shall be heard and determined as expeditious as the ends of justice shall require.”

He stated that the barring of Sangwa, without notice or process was seemingly in retaliation for his public engagement in matters of grave public interest.

“Several civil society organisations in and outside Zambia have expressed concern over the arbitrary suspension of Mr. Sangwa in what is viewed as an effort to silence critical voices. Mr. Sangwa is on public record criticizing the appointment of constitutional court judges and the unsuitability of some members of the bench. In recent months, Mr. Sangwa has been a vocal critic of Bill 10 and has reportedly accused the Constitutional Court judges of ‘failing the nation by refusing to allow a petition to challenge Constitutional Amendment Bill 10’. The barring of Mr. Sangwa, without notice or process, is seemingly in retaliation for his public engagement in matters of grave public interest [and] has a deeply chilling effect not only on lawyers in Zambia but the citizens at large,” Pates stated. “It is generally recognized that public officials, by virtue of the positions they occupy, should have a higher degree of tolerance to criticism and even offensive language. Furthermore, the UN Basic Principles clearly state that lawyers, like other citizens, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly. In particular, they shall have the right to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights…”

He stated that if LAZ proceeded to hear Sangwa, that should be done quickly.

“In light of the above, we request that you urgently intervene in the case of the barring of Mr. Sangwa, requesting that the bar be immediately lifted and urging the government of Zambia to ensure the rights of lawyers to be free from intimidation and retaliation, including arbitrary suspension and disciplinary measures. Should the Law Association of Zambia proceed to hear the complaint against Mr. Sangwa, this should be undertaken expeditiously, and he should be afforded his full due process rights including the determination of the matter before an impartial disciplinary body as recognized under international law standards,” stated Pates.

Opposition New Hope Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD) Youths have apologized to the National over the conduct of Raphael Nakachinda.

Patriotic Front (PF) Nominated Member of Parliament Mr. Raphael Nakachinda has in the recent past issued tribal remarks against the Tonga People.

The Youths through their National Youth Treasurer, Mr. Salt Mubita said that Raphael Nakachinda is an Ungrateful person.

“The New Hope MMD Youths are not shocked with the conduct of PF Nominated Member of Parliament Mr. Raphael Nakachinda. This is someone who our Party President Dr. Nevers Sekwila Mumba picked from the streets, bathed him, mentored him and introduced him to politics. Nakachinda was Dr. Mumba’s answering machine whenever you call President Mumba. But how has Nakachinda paid back Dr. Mumba’s kindness? He has paid back with insults, lies and treachery. To Us, Nakachinda is an Ungrateful soul”, Mr. Mubita said.

Mr. Mubita said that just like the way Nakachinda betrayed Felix Mutati, he will soon betray the Patriotic Front.

“When Ba Mutati started working with Nakachinda, we warned him about his treasourous behavior but he decided to pay a deaf ear. How did Nakachinda pay him back, he got him fired and got his job as a Nominated Member of Parliament. We have already warned the Patriotic Front about him but like Mutati they have also paid a deaf ear. We don’t want to be prophets of Doom, but with Nakachinda’s track record, we foresee him betraying them like what he did to President Mumba and Felix Mutati”, Mr. Mubita said.

Mr. Mubita said that it was shocking that Nakachinda can attack his tribes mate for a few copper ngwees.

“Though we understand how treacherous Nakachinda is, we never thought he could attack his own tribes mate in Southern Province for a few copper ngwees. Nakachinda should realize that family comes before Politics and we would like to call upon Former Defense Minister Hon. Geoffrey Bwalya Mwamba who resigned as Minister over his family to school Nakachinda that family is everything”, Mr. Mubita said.

Mr. Mubita then apologized to the Nation over Nakachinda tribal remarks.

“We would like to apologize to the Nation and the people of Southern Province for the recent tribal remarks by Raphael Nakachinda. We have seen it best to apologise because we are they ones who introduced him to politics, had we known that he was a cheap low level Judas Iscariot, We would never have allowed him into politics”, Mr. Mubita said.

CHAPTER One Foundation says Bill 10 does not address the concerns raised by some sections of the youth, women, and people living with disabilities that they are underrepresented.

Executive director Linda Kasonde said in a statement that the current Constitution was not an enemy of fair representation as it provides clear and mandatory terms that the system of elections “shall” ensure fair representation of various interest groups and gender equity in the National Assembly and councils.

“What is lacking is enforcement of those provisions which the government has the power to do. The constitutional provisions for the representation of marginalised groups already exists and can be implemented and enforced by the Electoral Commission of Zambia as well as political parties,” she said.
Kasonde stated that the Foundation had heard of calls for the Constitution (Amendment) Bill No. 10 of 2019 to be passed on the basis that it will enhance the representation of women, youth, and persons with disabilities in the National Assembly.

“We believe that the representation of marginalised interest groups such as women, youth and differently abled people in government is an important aspect of an inclusive democracy,” she stated. “We would like to highlight that the Zambian Constitution, which is the supreme law of the country, already provides that the electoral system must allow for the representation of different interest groups at presidential, parliamentary and local government level. Article 45 (1) of the current Constitution states as follows, ’45. (1) The electoral systems provided for in Article 47 for the election of President, Member of Parliament or councillor shall ensure: (a) that citizens are free to exercise their political rights; (b) universal adult suffrage based on the equality of a vote; (c) fair representation of the various interest groups in society; and (d) gender equity in the National Assembly or council’.”

Kasonde stated that those constitutional provisions had been in place since the Constitution was amended in 2016 and yet the government had not implemented them.

She stated that this shows a lack of political will on the part of the government.

“It begs the question why this government is now keen to push this agenda when they have had the power and authority to operationalise the laws that would enhance the participation of marginalised groups for the last four years,” Kasonde stated.

“Section 9 of Bill 10 seeks to amend Article 47 of the Constitution which provides as follows: ’47. (1) Elections to the office of President shall be conducted directly, under a majoritarian electoral system, where the winning candidate must receive more than fifty per cent of the valid votes cast, and in accordance with Article 101. (2) Elections to the National Assembly shall be conducted under a first-past-the-post electoral system in accordance with Article 68. (3) Elections to councils shall be conducted under a first-past-the-post electoral system and in accordance with Articles 153 and 154. (4) A constituency and a ward shall retain only one member to the National Assembly and council, respectively’.”

It is proposed that section 9 of Bill 10 would replace Article 47 of the Constitution with the following provisions: “Article 47 of the Constitution is amended by the deletion of clause (2) and the substitution therefor of the following: (2) Elections to the National Assembly shall be conducted under a mixed-member electoral system, as prescribed.”

Kasonde said a mixed‐member electoral system was a mixture of two principles of electoral system design: a majoritarian system, which is what the country currently has, where the parties with the most elected officials have the most seats in parliament; and proportional systems where the seats in parliament are divided according to the proportion of the votes that each party receives in a general election.

She said subsequently, unlike the provisions of the current Constitution, Bill 10 only provides for a mixed-member system but does not specifically provide for representation of marginalised groups.

“The constitutional provisions for the representation of marginalised groups already exists and can be implemented and enforced by the Electoral Commission of Zambia as well as political parties. Bill 10 does not address the concerns raised by some sections of the youth, women, and people living with disabilities that they are underrepresented,” Kasonde stated. “The current Constitution is not the enemy of fair representation, it provides clear and mandatory terms that the system of elections ‘shall’ ensure fair representation of various interest groups and gender equity in the National Assembly and the councils. What is lacking is enforcement of those provisions which the Government has the power to do.”

Kasonde also noted that, article 259 of the current Constitution provides that: “259. (1) Where a person is empowered to make a nomination or an appointment to a public office, that person shall ensure – (b) that fifty percent of each gender is nominated or appointed from the total available positions unless it is not practicable to do so; and (c) equitable representation of the youth and persons with disabilities, where these qualify for nomination or appointment.

Further, “(2) A person empowered to make a nomination or appointment to a public office shall, where possible, ensure that the nomination or appointment reflects the regional diversity of the people of Zambia.”

The Zambian Cabinet has eight female ministers against 29 positions of a possible 30 Cabinet Ministers. There are currently 10 provincial ministers that are all male.

“From the evidence and trends in appointments, it is clear that Article 259 of the Constitution is not being followed by the government. Therefore, it is clear that it is not the law that stands in the way of representation of marginalised groups but a lack of political will. Currently, one can legitimately argue that the composition of the National Assembly, Cabinet and many Councils can be said to be unconstitutional where they do not comply with the provisions of the Constitution,” she stated.

Kasonde reiterated the Foundation’s position that Bill 10 should be withdrawn as it is a danger to the principles of democracy and only seeks to undermine the power of the Zambian people.

FORMER special assistant to the President for political affairs Kaizer Zulu says he did not beat Chitambo PF member of parliament Remember Mutale, despite him insulting President Edgar Lungu.

But Mutale claims Zulu beat him after he refused to be part of a ploy within PF created to facilitate a way for Lusaka lawyer Kelvin Bwalya Fube (KBF) to contest the 2021 elections on the ruling party ticket.

This is a matter in which the two were involved in a brawl at a famous drinking joint called Chicago’s in Lusaka last Friday.

In an interview, Zulu denied the allegations, but accused the PF law maker of using vulgar language to describe the Head of State during their drinking spree.

“It is not true [that I beat him]. If you read from other versions that he has given, he says that I sent people to go and beat him but the truth is that he insulted the President, and I reported him to the police first. So this is a counter accusation that he is trying to level against me,” Zulu said before giving his version of what transpired.

“He joined my table at Chicago’s, not that we were together. He first hugged me, we went and sat, I asked him a particular question and in response he said the following; ‘what have you and chik**a Lungu done for me to be pushing your agenda. It was at that point that I asked him to leave, but certainly he did not want to leave but they took him out of the club. That is the truth,” claimed Zulu.

In a separate interview, Mutale said Zulu instructed youths to bundle him in a van and took him to Central police.

“That man Kaizer is not normal. I have a friend called Duncan Zulu he comes from the Copperbelt he is the one who invited me that we go and have a drink at Chicago’s. Honestly I [initially] refused to go there because I said I don’t drink from that place. [But] we went there and after drinking for 30 minutes or so I noticed some people entering a bar, a group of youths who were looking like thugs. I got worried and I thought this could be UPND cadres coming for my life. I wrote a text to the Inspector General of Police telling him I was under siege but he did not respond to my text,” Mutale narrated.

“I had to call (Daniel) Kalembe and he sent me a boy called Mwelwa. Some boy who I have now come to know that he is ‘soldier’ came to where I sat, my colleague Duncan had gone to the toilet, that soldier guy came to grab a seat. But I told him there was a person on that seat, and there was confusion that is how Mwelwa calmed the situation. I decided to leave because I did not feel safe. When leaving, I met Kaizer by the gate he is the one who noticed and forced me back in Chicago’s.”

He said after buying him some whiskey, Zulu introduced the agenda to back KBF at the PF convention.

“He bought two bottles of 21 years whisky. We started having a conversation then from nowhere he said ‘so you people want to go and ensure that Davies Mwila stands as President at the Convention and you have allowed it?’ I told him Mwila was my boss and we cannot talk about those issues. He started telling his boys that ‘I want you to bring this boy to Kafue, we should have a boat cruise together’ I asked him why he was inviting me for the boat cruise and I refused to go there. He got money and put in my pocket and that I should buy fuel when going to Kafue,” narrated Mutale.

“I asked why he was insisting that I should go to Kafue he said ‘I know you are very powerful provincial chairman for Central Province. What I want is that you create a way so that KBF can come and enter at the PF convention.’ I told him I couldn’t do that because KBF is no longer in PF and I told him that I was not the one who makes the lists for people to go at the convention. So he started saying why are you refusing to accept what I am telling you. That is how his boys lifted me up, dragged me out, Kaizer came and head-butted me and I was bundled onto a land cruiser.

NATIONAL Democratic Congress (NDC) leader Chishimba Kambwili says the only reason he is quiet over the decision by the party’s Roan member of parliament Joseph Chishala to support Bill 10 is because it is an offence to force a parliamentarian to vote otherwise on a bill.

Meanwhile, Chishala insists that he has not been compromised by supporting Bill 10 and that he has not shifted to the ruling PF.

Speaking to journalists after a court appearance, Friday, Kambwili said that he has never changed his stance on Bill 10 and that the party will handle Chishala’s case internally.

“I have never changed my position about Bill 10, I have never changed my position and I will never change my position. I instructed Chishala to go to a caucus which was a day before, and by the way, he was in my house, we were with the veep [Josephs Akafumba] up to 13:00 hours and our instructions are very clear – to go against Bill 10 so those allegations are just rubbish. My vice president can bear witness,” Kambwili said in response to accusations that he had changed his position on Bill 10.

“We were with Chishala up to one o’clock, he moved from our house to go to Parliament and we gave him clear instructions, so we are not worried about those allegations because our stance on Bill 10 remains the same, that’s our party position, NDC position. You know that in parliament, you cannot force an MP, it’s against the principles of parliament and it’s an offence, so don’t think our keeping quiet is the fact that [we’ve changed our position], we know that it is an offence to force an MP to vote otherwise, but that does not mean we are not doing anything, we will handle that matter internally.”

And speaking at a joint press briefing led by Government Chief Whip Brian Mundubile at Lusaka’s Pamodzi Hotel, Friday, Chishala argued that he belonged to the NDC and insisted that he did not see any sense in walking out of Parliament when the Constitution Amendment Bill Number 10 was re-introduced and debated last Tuesday.

He also insisted that he had not been compromised by the PF, neither had he ditched the NDC in favour of the ruling party.

“All that propaganda going round that I have been compromised; I have shifted, I have gone to PF, that is a blue lie! What I can tell the nation and the people of Roan is that I am still NDC, and I am in Parliament as NDC. I am not in Parliament as PF. Therefore, whatever move I make in Parliament, I make it for the sake of people of Roan. My stay in Parliament, I do it according to the way I feel it will benefit the people of Roan. There is no need for me to walk out of Parliament. I want to assure the people of Roan that I will never walk out of Parliament at all cost, I would rather fight from inside the House. I don’t see any sense of walking out because the people of Roan voted for me to debate in Parliament and not to walk out. I don’t see how I will formulate laws outside Parliament; laws are formulated from inside Parliament, so walking out, for me, it doesn’t make any sense,” said Chishala.

And Kabwe Central PF member of parliament Tutwa Ngulube, who is also Government Deputy Chief Whip, charged that it was illegal for the party to withdraw Bill 10.

“If you look at our Republican Constitution, as adopted on August 24, 1991, Article 79 is the only clause in the Constitution that talks about alterations to the Constitution. And if you read the whole of Article 79, you do not even see the Select Committee; you don’t even see the National Dialogue Forum (NDF), you don’t even see the consultations people talk about. But I think the PF thought this is a very important process and we don’t want to leave anyone behind and so they listened to the views of the people…,” Ngulube said.

“And the way Article 79 was framed as it stands, you cannot amend Article 79 without a referendum. So, those people, who are saying, ‘we are not happy with the content, we need more consultations…’ first of all, they have to be reminded to change Article 79, or to add or subtract anything, we need a referendum. So, Article 79 is cast in concrete unless you hold a referendum to include issues that our colleagues in the UPND have been trying to raise as far as we are concerned, the process which Bill 10 passed was in conformity with the provisions of Article 79.”

Bwana Mkubwa PF member of parliament Dr Jonas Chanda said claims that Bill 10 would extend President Lungu’s tenure of office were propaganda.

“There has been propaganda that Bill 10 aims to extend the tenure of office of His Excellency, Dr Edgar Chagwa Lungu, and his government. That is a lie and the problem with lies is that they have short legs; they get tired very quickly and you cannot defend them,” said Chanda.

And Lusaka Central PF member of parliament Margaret Mwanakatwe, who is former Minister of Finance, claimed that State House had no intention of printing money.

“…Article 71 by the Bank of Zambia (BoZ) and the submission, which was made by the Central Bank, they wanted to be in tandem with the SADC protocol of 2009, which advises or recommends that only the main functions of the Bank, which is monetary functions remain in the Constitution and all the functions are put in subsidiary legislation, which the BoZ wanted. So, it was very clear that they wanted the functions of the Central Bank to remain in the Constitution and we were quite happy to listen to the submissions and we have maintained the functions of the Central Bank in the Constitution. So, they can be rest assured that we are not intending to print money in Cabinet or in the Ministry of Finance or State House,” said Mwanakatwe.

Nalikwanda UPND member of parliament Prof Geoffrey Lungwangwa stressed that Bill 10 would restore chiefs’ traditional authority in the country if passed.

“Article 165 is about our traditional leaderships’ authority. As we are all aware, there has been a lot of succession wrangles, whether it is in the Bemba Kingdom, the Gawa Undi Kingdom, the Litunga of the Barosteland,” said Prof Lungwangwa.

PRINCE Akashambatwa Mbikusita Lewanika says just like UNIP and MMD, PF has betrayed the people by going back on certain promises they made about enhancing people’s freedoms.

And Akashambatwa says young people must rise up and fight for a better country because his generation is too old to contribute to governance issues as they used to at one time.

Meanwhile, Akashambatwa says leaders of political parties encourage violence by allowing cadres to dress up as though they are going to war.

Speaking at a stakeholders workshop organized by the Human Rights Commission in Mongu recently, Akashambatwa observed that politicians were fond of changing positions once voted into office.

“The history of Zambia is that UNIP was oppressive and it only realized how bad oppression is when it was in opposition. MMD was a champion of ending oppression [but] once they were in a seat to end it, they perpetuated it. PF was a very big champion against the Public Order Act, when it went into power suddenly it says ‘you cannot have a society without a Public Order Act.’ Now, are there any other potential betrayers who today may be pretending to be championing the cause of freedom?” Akashambatwa asked.

“The way UNIP championed independence freedom, the way MMD championed democracy and development, the way PF championed against the Public Order Act? How do we make sure that we do not continue this culture? We can only do that if the freedom we fight for is the freedom for everybody. We can only do that if the democracy we fight for, the justice we fight for is the justice for everybody including those we don’t agree with. And the time to show that if you go into power next you will be different is now before you are in power. Let us hear you even if you are in opposition. If injustice is being done by someone from the ruling party let us hear you stand up. If injustice is being done by your fellow party members, let us hear you stand up so that you can be partisan but in the context of being a nationalist.”

And Akashambatwa said it was time for young people to be actively involved in fighting for freedom.

“If you are looking for a rejuvenation of the struggle for democracy, the first place you should look at it is the mirror. If in the past you had people you had looked at, listened to, watched, and admired and proud of what they were doing, don’t now so many years later be perplexed (that they are silent), some have died some have cooled down; even your silence has disappointed them and incapacitated them So we ourselves should look in the mirror let us be the change we want. We are the ones that are awaited. If there were young people in the past who did certain things and you are young now, you should ask yourself why you are not like those young people. Not why those who were young people in 50 or 60 years ago are no longer acting like young people. In terms of youth, I will tell you that the reason why many changes are engineered by younger people is because when you are young, you are free to have audacity, you are also full of naivety where you fear very little things, you have very little stake in society so this your chance when you are young to really put your foot forward and not to be a spectator I think that that is most important. There are too many spectators,” Akashambatwa lamented.

“The liberation of democracy, democratic struggle is complete many efforts have been made in the past none of them have succeeded, none of us have succeed. So the struggle is still there and those of you who are young, are the ones now we are looking to, not to complain that the old people have become old but to say you are still young so let us see the energy come into the field. Somewhere specifically as you say that in 1991 that there were dynamic people like Aka who inspired them and my answer was that, if for one minute in my life in the past had I inspired you, this is your chance now to be the Aka you had admired, not to look for the old Aka to be the young Aka.”

Meanwhile, Akashambatwa said he was concerned about the conduct of today’s political party cadres.

“My other concern is young people, I am glad that participation here has been very vigorously from young people and a few old people. I am concerned about these people we call cadres. In the French language, cadre in political language, is a very positive word. It is a sign of commitment, ideological grounding and the fore front of your party. But it has obviously now not become such a positive word. And the areas which I would love to look at and which I ask all political leaders to look at as far as the cadres are concerned,… let me tell you who the young people were during the freedom struggle: the young cadres were the Rupiah Bandas, were the Venon Mwaangas, were the [Alexander] Chikwandas but they were sent to school! They were not sent to bars. So that when they came back from school, they found that they could continue with their mission. Now the present day leaders are challenged, what are you doing to these young people? Apart from taking them to streets, apart from getting them to drink, apart from getting them to fight, what about their future, if they are truly the future leaders? The other aspect which is related to that is the dress code which has been mentioned. All this pseudo militaristic stuff, why should you be roughly dressed as if you are going to war? When politics is supposed to be a civil aspect? And all our political leaders who allow these things are contributing to violence. Because if you dress a certain way, If you are dressed in a suit, it is very difficult to go to a fight into the mud but if you are already dressed like a thug, you are dressed like a military person, then you are ready for war, that is very bad! And that should be looked at and that bring some behavior. So that is a challenge to our leaders,” he said.

He insisted that any amendment to the constitution should be beyond party interests.

“There is no country without law and order. The truth is that there cannot be law and order without justice. So if you want to reinforce law and order, check out whether the law itself is just to everybody. Also related to that is that freedom and human rights are indivisible. When we had the heated debate on the treatment of members of the press, on all sides, the mistreatment of them, what came to mind clearly is that we are forgetting that for you to be a democrat, you must not just exercise your own freedom, you must fight and stand up for the freedom of everybody else including the minorities and including those who don’t agree with you. So whether you are the ruling party, if the opposition party is being harassed, stand on the principle that nobody should be harassed whether you agree with them or not. So that whether it is the State media or the public media or the private media which is being mistreated, those who want a future in which they are not mistreated must stand up for those who are mistreated. If you want non violence in our politics, you must condemn all violence even if it being perpetuated by people you are associated with so that you buy your credibility,” said Akashambatwa.

PRESS STATEMEMT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Lusaka_22nd March 2020

UPND CELEBRATES ANDERSON MAZOKA’S BIRTHDAY. HAPPY BIRTHDAY Mr.PRESIDENT.

Today, the 22nd March, UPND’S founding President, Anderson Kambela Mazoka was born.

Mazoka, the president who was elected to lead the country but never ascended to the throne in 2001 , was robbed of his victory.

The MMD under out going President Fredrick Chiluba then ensured he never became President.

Had Anderson Mazoka been alive today, we would have celebrated and gathered in a happy gathering as UPND to wish him a very happy birthday.

However , as we celebrate his birthday today, we still wish to convey a happy birthday message to our beloved Andy and esteemed leader, certain that he continues resting in peace.

Today , march 22nd, the UPND family joined by all corners of Zambia, stand up and say in unison – happy birthday Kambela, our dear and respected leader and simply our Andy.

As we celebrate his birthday, this is time of great stress for Andys’s movement , the UPND, our country Zambia and the world . We wish to emphasise three things.

One of these is that throughout its existence, UPND has had to confront and respond to threats which challenge it’s very existence.

At this time in history, UPND is faced with the demonic and evil Bill 10 which the PF government wants to force down our throats as a nation.

Our able UPND MPs with a clear developmental vision for the future of Zambia have so far worked tirelessly to ensure it is not enacted into law.

Another is that these threats and the UPND responses have also been related to the development of the country to ensure the nation’s multiparty system continues to grow and exist.

This describes what has been somewhat of a deep umbilical cord between the development of the movement of Anderson Mazoka, the UPND and multiparty democracy in Zambia, which Anderson was among the key architects.

The UPND Party of today is the torch bearer and has the burden to carry and ensure that Andy’s vision of a vibrant multiparty democratic system in Zambia is enshrined and etched in the Zambian people’s hearts.

In this regard, we want to remind the people of Zambia that since President Hakainde Hichilema took over as UPND president, this has been one of his underlying pillars and UPND has stood out as a defining player in terms of the construction of the relationship described by the respective evolution of the UPND and Zambia.

We are certain as UPND that this phenomenon has not been sufficiently canvassed in the public discourse correctly to explain and implant in the public conscious President HH and UPND’S deep and historical commitments to the facets of democracy in Zambia.

UPND, especially in the last few years has faced the threat of withering away out of existence due to the brutality of the ruling PF government but President’s HH’ tenacity, beliefs , values and his commitment to Anderson Kambela Mazoka’s vision has today ensured UPND remains on track to ensure Andy’s full vision will be realised come 2021.

Finally, we in the UPND family wish to invoke the Zambian people to remember the life of Anderson Mazoka during these difficult times. We cannot afford to be gripped by fear but we must be courageous enough to have a clear vision for a better Zambia which others will be able to carry and fight for even when we are long gone.

Happy birthday President Andy.
May your soul continue to rest in peace.

Issued by:

Stephen Katuka
UPND Secretary General

The Human Rights Commission has commended Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Kakoma Kanganja, for directing police officers to release persons charged with misdemeanors and contravention offences on police bond when he announced the constitution of a committee to coordinate the Zambia Police response to the Convid-19 Pandemic.

The Commission believes that the directive by the Inspector-General of Police should be the norm and not the exception made during this period of the Convid-19 Pandemic only as a preventative measure aimed at curbing the spreading of the virus to persons held in police cells.

Commission Acting Spokesperson Simon Mulumbi says, the detention of suspects beyond the prescribed 24 hours is common and of grave concern to the Commission as such overuse of pre-trial detention has continued to contribute to overcrowding in police cells and the resulting violation of the rights of the detainees.

he said It is extremely important that the Police should consider granting police bond for all offences that are bailable/bondable and remember that the Constitution of the Republic of Zambia guarantees to everyone the presumption of innocence in the event of being suspected to be a criminal.

The Commission is confident that the directive by the Inspector-General of Police will be consistently implemented by police officers to ensure that all persons who are charged with bondable offences are granted police bond as a matter of law as provided for under section 33 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act Chapter 88 of the Laws of Zambia which provides that:
“When any person has been taken into custody without a warrant for an offence other than an offence punishable with death, the officer in charge of the police station to which such person shall be brought may, in any case, and shall, if it does not appear practicable to bring such person before an appropriate competent court within twenty-four hours after he was so taken into custody, inquire into the case, and, unless the offence appears to the officer to be of a serious nature, release the person, on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, for a reasonable amount, to appear before a competent court at a time and place to be named in the bond: but, where any where any person is retained in custody, he shall be brought before a competent court as soon as practicable. Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, an officer in charge of a police station may release a person arrested on suspicion on a charge of committing any offence, when, after due police inquiry, insufficient evidence is, in his opinion, disclosed on which to proceed with the charge.” he said.

5FM NEWS

BILL-10 MUST DIE, MORE-&-MORE LACUNAS,

READ THE FULL-&-REAL BILL-10 BELOW,

& SEE THAT THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS,

ZAMBIA IS NOT FOR WAMUYAYAYA FOR. PF & EDGAR CHAGWA LUNGU. NEVER.

THE CONSTITUTION OF ZAMBIA (AMENDMENT), BILL 10, 2019,

MEMORANDUM
The object of this Bill is to amend the Constitution of Zambia so as to—
(a)revise the Preamble in order to reaffirm the Christian character of Zambia;
(b)revise the principles and values of the Constitution;
(c)revise the electoral system for elections to the National Assembly;
(d)revise the period for dissolution of the National Assembly;
(e)revise the period of hearing and determination of a presidential election petition;
(f)revise the manner of election of mayor and council chairperson;
(g)establish the office of deputy minister;
(h)revise the composition of the Cabinet;
(i)revise the provisions relating to the establishment of commissions;
(j)revise the provisions relating to the payment of pension
benefits and retention on the payroll;
(k)provide for the membership of Members of Parliament in councils;
(l)establish the Drug Enforcement Commission as the Anti-Drugs, Economic and Financial Crimes Agency and re-define its function as a national security service;
(m)revise the functions of the Public Protector;
(n)revise the functions of the Bank of Zambia;
(o)revise the functions of the Auditor-General; and
(p)provide for matters connected with, or incidental to, the foregoing.

L. KALALUKA,
Attorney-General
N.A.B. 10, 2019, 21st June, 2019

A BILL ENTITLED,
An Act to amend the Constitution of Zambia.
ENACTED by the Parliament of Zambia
1. This Act may be cited as the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act, 2019, and shall be read as one with the Constitution of Zambia, in this Act referred to as the Constitution.
2. The Preamble is amended by the deletion of the words “multi-religious” and the substitution therefor of the word “Christian”.
3. Article 1 of the Constitution is amended by the deletion of clause (5) and the substitution therefor of the following:
(5) Subject to Article 28, a matter relating to this Constitution shall be heard and determined by the Constitutional Court.
4. Article 4 of the Constitution is amended by the deletion of Clause (3) and the substitution therefor of the following:
(3) The Republic is a Christian, unitary, indivisible, multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-party democratic
State.;
5. Article 8 of the Constitution is amended by the deletion of paragraph (a)and the substitution therefor of the following paragraph:
(a)Christian morality and ethics;.
6. Article 10 of the Constitution is amended by the deletion of Clause (4) and the substitution therefor of the following:
(4) Subject to Article 16, the Government shall not compulsorily acquire an investment.;
7. Article 38 of the Constitution is amended by the insertion of the words “as prescribed” immediately after the word “adoption”.
8. Article 46 of the Constitution is amended by the insertion of the words “as prescribed” immediately after the word “ballot”.
9. Article 47 of the Constitution is amended by the deletion of clause (2) and the substitution therefor of the following:
(2) Elections to the National Assembly shall be conducted under a mixed member electoral system, as prescribed.
10. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Article 51 and the substitution therefor of the following:
51. A person is eligible for election as an independent candidate for a National Assembly seat if the person meets the qualifications specified in Article 70 for election as a Member of Parliament.
11. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Article 52.
12. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Article 60 and the substitution therefor of the following:
60. (1) A political party shall be established as prescribed.
(2) A political party shall—
(a)promote the values and principles specified in this Constitution;
(b)have a national character;
(c)promote and uphold national unity;
(d)promote and practice democracy through regular, free and fair elections within the party; and
(e)subscribe to and observe the code of conduct for political parties, as prescribed.
(3) A political party shall not—
(a)be founded on a religious, linguistic, racial, ethnic, tribal, gender, sectoral or provincial basis or engage in propaganda based on any of these factors;
(b)engage in or encourage violence or intimidate its members, supporters, opponents or other persons;
(c)engage in corrupt practices; and
(d)except as prescribed, use public resources to promote its interest or that of its members.
13. Article 63 (2) of the Constitution is amended by the deletion
of paragraphs (d)and (e).
14. Article 67 of the Constitution is amended—
(a)in clause (3), by the deletion of the words “within fourteen days of the publication of the statutory instrument in the Gazette”; and
(b)by the deletion of clauses (4), (5) and (6).
15. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Article 68 and the substitution therefor of the following:
68. Subject to Article 47, the election, nomination, qualification and vacation of office of a Member of Parliament shall be as prescribed.
16. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Articles 69,70, 71 and 72.
17. Article 73 of the Constitution is amended in clause (2), by the insertion of the words “and determined” between the words “heard” and “within”.
18. Article 74 of the Constitution is amended by the deletion of clause (1), and the substitution therefor of the following:
(1) The Vice-President shall be the Leader of Government Business in the National Assembly.
19. Article 75 of the Constitution is amended—
(a)in clause (1), by the deletion of the word “sitting” and the substitution therefor of the word “meeting”;
(b)in clause (2), by the deletion of the word “sittings” and the substitution therefor of the word “meetings”;
(c) by the deletion of clause (3) and the substitution therefor of the following:
(3) Notwithstanding clause (2), the President, or two-thirds of the Members of Parliament, may, in writing, request the Speaker to summon a meeting of the National Assembly.;
and
(d)in the marginal note, by the deletion of the word “sittings” and the substitution therefor of the word “meetings”.
20. Article 78 of the Constitution is amended—
(a)in clause (2), by the deletion of paragraph (b) and the substitution therefor of the following:
(b)in the case of a tie, another vote shall be taken.
(b)by the insertion of the following new clause immediately after clause (2):
(3) If at the conclusion of a second vote, there is a tie, a third vote shall be taken, and in the event of a tie, the question shall be lost.
21. Article 80 (2) of the Constitution is amended by the deletion of the word “sitting” and the substitution therefor of the word “meeting”.
22. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Article 81
and the substitution therefor of the following:
81. (1) The term of Parliament shall be five years commencing from the date that the Members of Parliament are sworn into office after a general election and ending on the date of the next general election.
(2) The National Assembly may, when the Republic is at war, by resolution supported by a simple majority vote of the Members of Parliament, extend the term of Parliament for not more than twelve months at a time.
(3) Subject to clauses (4), (5) and (6), the President may dissolve Parliament if the Executive cannot effectively govern the Republic due to the failure of the National Assembly to objectively and reasonably carry out its legislative function.
(4) Where the President intends to dissolve Parliament in accordance with clause (3), the President shall inform the public and refer the matter, within seven days, to the Constitutional Court.
(5) The Constitutional Court shall hear and determine the matter, referred to it in accordance with clause (4), within seven days of receipt of the matter.
(6) The Constitutional Court shall, where it decides that the situation in clause (3) exists, inform the President and the President shall dissolve Parliament.
(7) Where Parliament is dissolved under clause (3), the President shall, until the President-elect assumes office, continue to perform the executive functions, in accordance with Article 104.
(8) Where Parliament is dissolved under clause (3), general elections shall be held within ninety days of the dissolution.
(9) The President may, due to a state of war, state of public emergency or threatened state of public emergency, after the dissolution of Parliament and before the holding of general elections, recall the National Assembly that was dissolved.
(10) The President may, in consultation with the Speaker, prorogue Parliament by proclamation.
23. Article 83 of the Constitution is amended—
(a)in clause (1), by the deletion of paragraph (b)and the substitution therefor of the following:
(b)been legally disqualified from performing the functions of the Office of Speaker or Deputy
Speaker;
(b)clause (5), by the deletion of paragraph (a)and the substitution therefor of the following:
(a)are not substantiated, the National Assembly shall, reinstate the Speaker or Deputy Speaker; or;
And
(c)in the marginal note, by the insertion of the words “or Deputy Speaker” after the word “Speaker.”
24. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Article 84 and the substitution therefor of the following:
84. (1) There shall be a Clerk of the National Assembly who shall be appointed as prescribed.
25. Article 88 of the Constitution is amended by the deletion of clause (1) and the substitution therefor of the following:
(1) A citizen may petition the National Assembly to—
(a)initiate the enactment, amendment or repeal of legislation; or
(b)consider any other matter that falls within the jurisdiction of the National Assembly.
26. Article 92(2) of the Constitution is amended—
(a)in paragraphs (a)and (b), by the deletion of the word “consuls,” and the substitution therefor of the words “consuls general”; and
(b)by the deletion of paragraph (c)and the substitution therefor of the following:
(c) negotiate and sign international agreements and treaties and, ratify or accede to, or withdraw
from, international agreements and treaties;
27. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Article 94 and the substitution therefor of the following:
94. (1) Where in this Constitution, an appointment to an office or the taking of a measure by the President is subject to approval by the National Assembly, the National Assembly shall, in the sitting next after receipt of the request for approval, give its approval within thirty days of the commencement of the sitting.
(2) Where the National Assembly does not give its approval within the period specified in clause (1), the President shall propose another measure or appoint another person to that office, and submit that measure or appointment for approval by the National Assembly.
(3) Where the National Assembly refuses or delays the approval for the second time, the President shall propose another measure or appoint another person to that office and shall submit that measure or appointment for approval by the National Assembly.
(4) Where the National Assembly refuses or delays the approval of the measure or appointment for the third time, that measure or appointment shall take effect.
28. Article 95(1) of the Constitution is amended by the deletion of the words “twenty-one” and the substitution therefor of the word “thirty”.
29. Article 100(2) of the Constitution is amended by the deletion of paragraph (f)and the substitution therefor of the following:
(f)is legally disqualified from performing the executive functions.
30. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Articles 101,
102, 103 and 104 and the substitution therefor of the following:
101.(1) A President shall be elected by registered voters in accordance with Article 47(1) and this Article.
(2) The Returning Officer shall declare the presidential candidate who receives more than fifty percent of the valid votes cast during the election as President-elect.
(3) If at the initial ballot, a presidential candidate does not receive more than fifty percent of the valid votes cast, the candidate with the highest number of vote cast shall, within fourteen days of the declaration by the Returning Officer of the presidential election results negotiate and form a coalition government with a presidential candidate that participated in the initial ballot, except that the combined votes of that presidential candidate and the preferred presidential candidate forming the coalition government meet the threshold of more than fifty percent of the valid votes cast.
(4) Where the candidate with the highest number of votes fails to form a coalition government within the period specified in clause (3), a second ballot shall be held within thirty-seven days of the initial ballot, where the only candidates shall be the presidential candidates who obtained—
(a) the highest and second highest number of valid votes cast in the initial ballot; or
(b)an equal number of the valid votes cast in the initial ballot, being the highest votes amongst the presidential candidates that stood for election to the office of President.
(5) The Returning Officer shall declare as President-elect—
(a)the presidential candidate who obtains more than fifty percent of the valid votes cast;
(b)in the event of the formation of a coalition, the presidential candidate who obtains the highest number of valid votes cast; and
(c)in the case of a second ballot, the presidential candidate who obtained the majority of the valid votes cast in the second ballot.
(6) A losing candidate may petition a presidential election in accordance with Article 103.
102. (1) A presidential candidate shall not take part in the second ballot, if that presidential candidate—
(a)resigns for a reason other than ill- health;
(b)becomes disqualified as specified in Article 100;
(c)is disqualified by a decision of the Constitutional Court in accordance with Article 103;
(2) Where a presidential candidate does not take part in a second ballot because of a reason specified in clause (1), a candidate who scored the third highest number of valid votes cast in the initial ballot, shall be a presidential candidate in the second ballot, together with the remaining presidential candidate that had initially qualified for the second ballot.
(3) If a presidential candidate—
(a)dies; or
(b) resigns due to ill health; before the taking of a second ballot, the running mate to that presidential candidate in the initial ballot shall assume the place of that presidential candidate.
(4) The presidential candidate who assumes the place of the previous presidential candidate in accordance with clause
(2) shall appoint a running mate.
(5) Where both presidential candidates—
(a)resign;
(b) become disqualified under Article 100;
(c)become disqualified by a decision of the Constitutional Court under Article 103; or
(d)die; before the taking of the second ballot, fresh nominations shall be filed with the Electoral Commission, as prescribed.
103. (1) A losing candidate may, within seven days of the declaration made under Article 101(2) and (5), petition the Constitutional Court to nullify the election of a presidential candidate who took part in the initial ballot on the ground that—
(a)the person was not validly elected; or
(b)a provision of this Constitution or other written law relating to presidential elections was not complied with.
(2) The Constitutional Court shall hear and determine an election petition filed in accordance with clause (1) within thirty days of the filing of the petition.
(3) The Constitutional Court may, after hearing an election petition—
(a)declare the election of the President-elect valid;
(b)nullify the election of the President-elect;
(c)disqualify the President-elect from being a candidate in the second ballot; or
(d)grant any other relief the court considers just.
(4) A decision of the Constitutional Court made in accordance with clause (3) is final.
(5) A losing candidate may, within seven days of the declaration of President-elect, by the Returning Officer following the second ballot, petition the Constitutional Court to nullify the election of the President-elect on the ground that—
(a)the person was not validly elected; or
(b)a provision of this Constitution or other written law relating to presidential elections was not complied with.
(6) The Constitutional Court shall hear and determine an election petition relating to the President-elect within thirty days of the filing of the petition.
(7) Where the election of the President-elect and Vice-President is nullified by the Constitutional Court, a presidential election shall be held within sixty days from the date of the nullification.
104. (1) The President-elect shall be sworn into office and assume office in accordance with Article 105.
(2) Subject to clauses (3) and (4), where the Returning Officer declares a presidential candidate as President-elect, the incumbent shall continue to perform the executive functions until the President-elect assumes office, except the power to—
(a)make an appointment; or
(b)dissolve the National Assembly.
(3) Subject to Article 105, and except where the incumbent is the President-elect, the incumbent President shall, on the assumption of office by the President-elect, begin and complete the procedural and administrative handing over of the executive functions, to the President-elect, within fourteen days from the day the President-elect assumes office.
31. Article 107 of the Constitution is amended by the deletion of the words “physical or mental” wherever the words appear.
32. Article 108 of the Constitution is amended by the deletion of—
(a)clause (8)(a)and the substitution therefor of the following:
(a)is not substantiated, the National Assembly shall not take further proceedings in respect of the allegation; or; and
(b)by the deletion of clause (9) and the substitution therefor of the following:
(9) The President shall, on the passing of the resolution in accordance with—
(a)clause (8)(a), resume to perform the executive functions; or
(b)clause (8)(b), cease to hold office and be amenable to prosecution without the need to lift the immunity under Article 98.
33. Article 111 of the Constitution is amended—
(a)by the deletion of clauses (3) and (6); and
(b)by the renumbering of clauses (4) and (5) as clauses (3) and (4), respectively.
34. The Constitution is amended by the deletion of the sub-heading immediately after Article 112 and the substitution therefor of the following:
“Cabinet, Minister, Provincial Minister and Deputy Minister”.
35. Article 113 of the Constitution is amended by the deletion of paragraph (d) and the substitution therefor of the following:
(d)Provincial Ministers; and
(e)the Attorney-General and the Chief Whip, as ex-officio members.
36. Article 114 (1) of the Constitution is amended by the deletion of paragraphs (d) and (e)and the substitution therefor of the following:
(d)accede or ratify or withdraw from international agreements and treaties; and
(e)approve—
(i) loans to be contracted by the state; and
(ii) guarantees on loans contracted by State institutions;.
37. Article 116 (3) of the Constitution is amended—
(a)by the deletion of paragraph (f) and the substitution therefor of the following:
(f)the Minister is legally disqualified from performing the functions of that office; and
(b)by the insertion of the following new clause immediately after clause (3):
(4) Subject to this Constitution, a Minister shall continue to hold office until the next general election.
38. The Constitution is amended by the insertion of the following new Article immediately after Article 117:
117A. The President may appoint a prescribed number of Deputy Ministers as the President may consider necessary to assist Ministers in the performance of the Ministers functions and to exercise or to perform on behalf of Ministers functions of the Ministers that the President may authorise in that behalf.
39. Article 119 (2) of the Constitution is amended by the insertion of the words “and determine” immediately after the word “hear” wherever it appears.
40. Article 120 of the Constitution is amended—
(a)in clause (3) by the deletion of—
(i) paragraph (b)and the substitution therefor of the following:
(b)jurisdiction, powers and sittings of the courts and other prescribed courts;; and
(ii) paragraph (e) and the substitution therefor of the following:
(e) jurisdiction, powers and sittings of the courts and other prescribed courts; and
(b)by the deletion of clause (5).
41. Article 122 of the Constitution is amended by the deletion of clause (1) and the substitution therefor of the following:
(1) In the exercise of the judicial authority, the Judiciary shall be autonomous and shall be subject only to this Constitution and the law and not be subject to the control or direction of a person or an authority.
42. Article 124 of the Constitution is amended by the deletion of paragraph (c) and the substitution therefor of the following:
(c)an uneven number of judges, as prescribed.
43. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Article 127 and the substitution therefor of the following:
127. There is established the Constitutional Court which consists of—
(a) the Chief Justice;
(b) the President of the Constitutional Court; and
(c)an uneven number of judges, as prescribed.
44. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Article 129 and the substitution therefor of the following:
129. The sittings of the Constitutional Court shall be as prescribed.
45. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Articles 138 and 139.
46. Article 140 of the Constitution is amended by the—
(a)deletion of paragraph (d); and
(b)the renumbering of paragraph
(e) as paragraph (d).
47. Article 142 (3) of the Constitution is amended by the deletion of the words “and President of the Constitutional Court”.
48. Article 143 of the Constitution is amended by the deletion of paragraph (a) and the substitution therefor of the following:
(a)is legally disqualified from performing judicial functions.
49. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Article 144 and the substitution therefor of the following:
144. (1) The removal of a judge may be initiated by the Judicial Service Commission or by a complaint made to the Judicial Service Commission, based on the grounds specified in Article 143.
(2) The Judicial Service Commission shall, where it decides that a prima facie case has been established against a judge, submit a report to the President.
(3) The President shall, within seven days from the date of receiving the report, submitted in accordance with clause
(2), suspend the judge from office and appoint a Tribunal.
(4) The Tribunal shall consist of a Chairperson and at least two members, who all hold or have held the office of judge.
(5) The Tribunal shall, within thirty days of the judge being suspended from office, under clause (3)—
(a) hear and determine the matter against the judge on the grounds specified in Article 143 (b), (c) or (d);or
(b)constitute a medical board, in consultation with the body responsible for regulating health practitioners, to inquire into an allegation based on the ground specified in Article 143(a).
(6) Where the Tribunal decides that an allegation based on a ground specified in Article 143 (b), (c) or (d) is—
(a) not substantiated, the Tribunal shall recommend, to the President, the revocation of the judge’s suspension and the President shall immediately revoke the suspension; or
(b)substantiated, the Tribunal shall recommend, to the President, the removal of the judge from office and the President shall immediately remove the judge from office.
(7) The proceedings under clause (5)(a) shall be held in camera and the judge is entitled to appear, be heard and represented by a legal practitioner or other person chosen by the judge.
(8) The medical board, constituted in accordance with clause (5) (b), shall consist of not less than three registered health practitioners.
(9) The medical board shall, within thirty days of being constituted, examine the judge and report to the Tribunal on the judge’s capacity to perform the judicial functions.
(10) Where the medical board recommends to the Tribunal that the judge is—
(a) capable of performing the judicial functions, the Tribunal shall recommend to the President the revocation of the judge’s suspension and the President shall immediately revoke the suspension; or
(b) incapable of performing the judicial functions, the Tribunal shall recommend to the President the
removal of the judge from office and the President shall immediately remove the judge from office.
(11) A judge who refuses to submit to an examination, in accordance with clause (9), shall immediately be removed from office by the President.
50. Article 147 of the Constitution is amended by the deletion of clause (2) and the substitution therefor of the following:
(2) The concurrent and exclusive functions of the national, provincial and local government levels shall be as prescribed.
51. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Article 149 and the substitution therefor of the following:
149. (1) The President may create or divide a province or merge two or more provinces, as prescribed.
(2) A province shall consist of such number of districts, as prescribed.
52. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Article 153 and the substitution therefor of the following:
153. (1) A councilor shall be elected in accordance with Article 47(3) by registered voters’ resident within the ward.
(2) A council shall consist of the following councilors:
(a)persons elected in accordance with clause (1);
(b) a mayor or council chairperson;
(c) not more than three chiefs or three chief ’s representatives in the district, elected by the chiefs in the district, except that where a district has three or fewer number of chiefs, each chief may nominate a representative; and
(d) a Member of Parliament elected in accordance with Articles 47(2);
(3) The system of electing chiefs specified in clause (2)
(c) shall be as prescribed.
(4) A person qualifies to be elected as a councilor, if that person—
(a) is eighteen years of age or above;
(b) has obtained, as a minimum academic qualification, a grade twelve school certificate or its equivalent;
(c) is a citizen resident in the district;
(d)declares that person’s assets and liabilities, as prescribed; and
(e)has paid that person’s taxes or made arrangements satisfactory to the appropriate tax authority for the payment of the taxes.
(5) A council may invite a person, whose presence is in the council’s opinion desirable, to attend and participate in the deliberations of the council but that person shall have no vote.
(6) The term of a council shall be five years commencing from the date the councilors are sworn into office after a general election and ending on the date of the next general election.
53. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Article 154 and the substitution therefor of the following:
154. (1) There shall be a mayor and a deputy mayor or council chairperson and a deputy council chairperson for every council, as prescribed.
(2) A mayor and deputy mayor or a council chairperson and deputy council chairperson shall be elected-(a)by councilors among themselves, as prescribed; and
(b) for a term of five years and may be re-elected for one further term of five years.
54. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Article 157 and the substitution therefor of the following:
157. (1) A councilor shall vacate office on dissolution of a council.
(2) The vacation of office of a councillor shall be as prescribed.
55. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Article 158.
56. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Article 159 and the substitution therefor of the following:
159. The Chief Justice shall establish a number of ad hoc local government election tribunals for election petitions of a councillor as prescribed.
57. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Article 165 and the substitution therefor of the following:
165. (1) Subject to clause (2), the institution of chieftaincy and traditional institutions are guaranteed and shall exist in accordance with the culture, customs and traditions of the people to whom they apply.
(2) The recognition or withdrawal of a person as a chief shall be as prescribed.
(3) Where there is a dispute in respect of an appointment or election of a chief and the dispute is not resolved in accordance with the culture, customs and tradition of the people to whom it applies the dispute shall be resolved by the House of Chiefs.
58. Article 168 (2) of the Constitution is amended by the deletion of the words “except that of councillor”.
59. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Article 169 and the substitution therefor of the following:
169. (1) There is established a House of Chiefs.
(2) The House of Chiefs shall consist of five chiefs from each province, elected by the chiefs in a Province, as prescribed.
(3) The members of the House of Chiefs shall elect a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the House of Chiefs, every five years from among themselves.
(4) The functions of the House of Chiefs are to—
(a) consider and discuss a Bill relating to custom or tradition referred to it by the President, before the
Bill is introduced into the National Assembly;
(b) initiate, discuss and make recommendations to the National Assembly regarding socio-economic development in the Province;
(c) initiate, discuss and decide on matters relating to customary law and practice;
(d)initiate, discuss and make recommendations to a local authority regarding the welfare of communities in a local authority;
(e)make proposals on areas in customary law that require codification;
(f) advise the Government on traditional and customary matters;
(g) resolve succession and any other disputes relating to chieftaincy as prescribed; and
(h)perform other functions as prescribed.

60. Article 170(2) of the Constitution is amended by the deletion of paragraph(d)and the substitution therefor of the following:
(d) is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period exceeding six months without the option of a fine.

61. Article 176 of the Constitution is amended by the deletion—
(a)in clause (1), of the words “in consultation with the Civil Service Commission”;
(b)of clause (3) and the substitution therefor of the following:
(3) A person qualifies to be appointed as Secretary to the Cabinet if that person has served in a senior management position in the public service for at least ten years.
62. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Article 178 and the substitution therefor of the following:
178. (1) The term of office of the Attorney-General shall be five years and shall run concurrently with the term of the President.
(2) The office of the Attorney-General becomes vacant if —
(a)the Attorney-General is removed from office by the President;
(b)another person assumes the office of President;
(c)the Attorney General dies;
(d)the Attorney-General resigns; or
(e)the Attorney-General is legally disqualified from performing the functions of that office.
63.Article 179 of the Constitution is amended—
(a) by the deletion of the words “Solicitor-General” wherever the words appear and the substitution therefor of the words “Deputy Attorney-General”;
64. Article 183 of the Constitution is amended—
(a)in clause (1), by the deletion of the words “in consultation with the Civil Service Commission”;
(b)in clause (3) (a) (ii), by the deletion of the words “province, local authority, State institution or other prescribed body” and the substitution thereof of the words “public body”; and
(c)by the deletion of clause (3)(b)and the re-numbering of
paragraphs (c), (d) and (e)as paragraphs (b), (c)and(d).
65. Article 184 (2) is amended by the deletion of paragraph (d).
66. Article 186 is amended by the insertion of the following clause immediately after clause (2):
(3) A public officer who seeks election under clause
(1) shall resign at least two years before the date of election.
67. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Article 189 and the substitution therefor of the following:
189. A pension benefit shall be paid promptly and regularly.
68. Article 192 (2) of the Constitution is amended by the insertion of the following paragraph immediately after paragraph (c):
(d)perform other functions as may be prescribed.
69. Article 193 (1) of the Constitution is amended by the—
(a)insertion of the following paragraph immediately after paragraph (c):
(d)the Anti-Drugs, Economic and Financial Crimes Agency; and
(b)renumbering of paragraph (d)as paragraph (e).
70. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Article 199 and the substitution therefor of the following:
199. A tax shall not be imposed, waived or varied, except as prescribed.
71. Article 213 of the Constitution is amended by the deletion of clause (2) and the substitution therefor of the following:
(2) The function of the Bank of Zambia is to formulate and implement monetary policy.
72. Article 214(1) of the Constitution is amended by the deletion of paragraph (b) and the substitution therefor of the following:
(b)a person who has specialised training and proven experience relevant to the functions of the central bank, as prescribed.
73. Article 215 (d) of the Constitution is amended by the insertion of the word “qualifications,” immediately before the word “tenure”.
74. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Part XVIII and the substitution therefor of the following:
PART XVIII
SERVICE, INVESTIGATIVE ANDOTHERCOMMISSIONS ANDINDEPENDENT
OFFICES
216. (1) A service, investigative or other commission may be established as prescribed.
(2) A commission shall—
(a) be subject only to this Constitution and the law;
(b) be independent;
(c)act with dignity, professionalism, propriety and integrity;
(d) be non-partisan; and
(e)be impartial in the exercise of its authority.
217. (1) A commission shall be a self-accounting institution which deals directly with the Ministry responsible for finance in matters relating to its finances.
(2) A commission shall be adequately funded in a financial year to enable it to effectively perform its functions.

218. The expenses of a commission, including emoluments payable to, or in respect of, persons serving with that commission, shall be a charge on the Consolidated Fund.
Electoral Commission of Zambia
219. (1) There is established the Electoral Commission of Zambia which shall be independent and have offices in Provinces and in districts, progressively.
(2) The Electoral Commission shall—
(a)implement the electoral process;
(b)conduct elections and referenda;
(c)register voters;
(d) settle minor electoral disputes, as prescribed;
(e) regulate the conduct of voters and candidates;
(f) accredit observers and election agents, as prescribed;
(g) delimit electoral boundaries; and
(h) perform such other functions, as prescribed.
Human Rights Commission
220. (1) There is established the Human Rights Commission which shall have offices in the provinces and districts, progressively.
(2) The Human Rights Commission shall ensure that the Bill of Rights is upheld and protected.

(3) The Human Rights Commission shall—
(a investigate and report on the observance of rights and freedoms;
(b) take necessary steps to secure appropriate redress where rights and freedoms are violated;
(c) endeavour to resolve a dispute through negotiation, mediation or conciliation;
(d)carry out research on rights and freedoms and related matters;
(e) conduct civic education on rights and freedoms; and
(f) perform such other functions as prescribed.
Investigative Commissions
221. (1) There is established the Anti-Corruption Commission as an Investigative Commission.

(2) The functions of the Anti-Corruption Commission shall be as prescribed.
Other Independent Offices
222. (1) There is a Public Protector appointed by the President, subject to ratification by the National Assembly.
(2) A person qualifies for appointment as Public Protector if that person—
(a) is qualified to be appointed as a judge; and
(b)does not hold a State office or Constitutional office.
(3) The office of Public Protector shall progressively be decentralised to the Provinces and to districts, as prescribed.
223. (1) The Public Protector may investigate an action or decision taken or omitted to be taken by a State institution in the performance of an administrative function.
(2) For purposes of clause (1), an action or decision taken or omitted to be taken is an action or decision which is—
(a) unfair, unreasonable or illegal; or
(b) not compliant with the rules of natural justice.
(3) For purposes of clauses (1) and (2), the Public Protector may—
(a) bring an action before a court;
(b) hear an appeal by a person relating to an action or decision taken or omitted to be taken in respect of that person; and
(c) make a decision on an action to be taken against a public office or Constitutional office holder, which decision shall be implemented by an appropriate authority.
(4) The Public Protector shall not be subject to the direction or control of a person or an authority in the performance of the functions of office.
(5) The Public Protector has the same powers as those of the High Court in—
(a)enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath;
(b)examining witnesses outside Zambia;
(c)compelling the production of documents;
(d)enforcing decisions issued by the Public Protector;
and
(e) citing a person or an authority for contempt for failure to carry out a decision.
(6) A person summoned to give evidence or to produce a document before the Public Protector is entitled, in respect of that evidence or the production of the document, to the same privileges and protection as those that a person would be entitled to before a court.
(7) An answer by a person to a question put by the Public Protector is not admissible in evidence against that person in civil or criminal proceedings, except for perjury.
224. The Public Protector shall not investigate a matter which—
(a)is before a court, court martial or a quasi-judicial body;
(b)relates to an officer in the Parliamentary Service or Judicial Service;
(c)involves the relations or dealings between the Government and foreign government or an
international organisation; and
(d)relates to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy; or
(e) is criminal in nature.
225. Where the Public Protector is absent from Zambia or is unable to perform the functions of office due to illness or other cause, the President shall appoint a person qualified to perform the functions of the Public Protector until that appointment is revoked or until the Public Protector returns to office.
226. (1) Subject to this Article, the Public Protector shall retire from office on attaining the age of sixty years.
(2) The Public Protector may retire, with full benefits, on attaining the age of fifty-five years.
(3) The Public Protector may be removed from office on the same grounds and procedure as apply to a judge, with the necessary modification.
(4) The Public Protector may resign from office by three months’ notice, in writing, to the President.
227. The office of the Public Protector shall report to the National Assembly on matters concerning its affairs.
228. (1) There is an Auditor-General appointed by the President, subject to ratification by the National Assembly.
(2) The office of Auditor-General shall be decentralized to the Provinces and to districts progressively, as prescribed.

(3) The following shall be prescribed:
(a)the qualifications of the Auditor-General;
(b)the operations and management of the office of the Auditor-General;
(c) the recruitment, supervision, grading, promotion and discipline of the staff of the Auditor-General; and
(d) the finances of the office of the Auditor-General.
229. (1) The Auditor-General shall—
(a) audit the accounts of—
(i) State organs, State institutions, provincial administration and local authorities; and
(ii) institutions financed from public funds;
(b) audit the accounts that relate to the stocks, shares and stores of the Government;
(c)conduct financial and value for money audits, including forensic audits and any other type of audit, in respect of a project that involves the use of public funds;
(d) ascertain that money appropriated by Parliament or raised by the Government and disbursed-(i) has been applied for the purpose for which it was appropriated or raised;
(ii) was expended in conformity with the authority that governs it; and
(iii) was expended economically, efficiently and effectively; and
(e)recommend to the Director of Public Prosecutions or a law enforcement agency any matter within the competence of the Auditor-General, that may require to be prosecuted.
(2) The Auditor-General and any other officer authorized by the Auditor-General shall have access to all books, records, reports and other documents relating to any of the accounts referred to in clause (1).

(3) The Auditor-General shall not be subject to the direction or control of a person or an authority in the performance of the functions of that office.
230. Where the Auditor-General is absent from Zambia or is unable to perform the functions of office due to illness or other cause, the President shall appoint a person qualified to perform the functions of the Auditor-General until that appointment is revoked or until the Auditor-General returns to office.
231. (1) Subject to this Article, the Auditor-General shall hold office for a term of seven years or retire from office on attaining the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier.
(2) The Auditor-General may retire, with full benefits, on attaining the age of fifty-five years.
(3) The Auditor-General may be removed from office on the same grounds and procedure as apply to a judge, with the necessary modifications.
(4) The Auditor-General may resign from office by giving three months’ notice in writing, to the President.
75. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of Article 264.
76. Article 266 of the Constitution is amended—
(a)by the deletion of the definitions of “adult”, “chief”, “child”, “commission”, “councillor”, “devolution”, “pension benefit”, “public office”, “public officer”, “public service”, “service commissions”, “State institution”, “sub-national”, “young person” and “youth” and the substitution therefor of the following:

“adult” means a person who has attained, or is above, the age of eighteen years;
“chief” means a person bestowed as chief and who derives allegiance from birth or descent, in accordance with the customs, traditions, usage or consent of the people in a chiefdom or is recognised as prescribed;
“child” means a person below the age of eighteen years;
“councillor” means a person elected to sit in the council in accordance with Article 47(3) during
the local government elections;
“Deputy Minister” means a person appointed as a Deputy Minister;
“devolution” means a form of decentralisation where there is a transfer of rights, functions and powers of an office from the central government or State institution to a province or district authority and the word “devolved” shall be construed accordingly;
“pension benefit” includes a pension, gratuity or compensation in respect of a person’s service;
“province” means an administrative division of government at provincial or district level;
“public office” means an office whose emoluments and expenses are a charge on the Consolidated Fund or other prescribed public fund;
“public officer” means a person holding or acting in a public office and includes state officer;
“public service” includes a commission, Judicial Service Commission, Public Service
Commission and Teaching Service Commission;
“young person” means a person who has attained the age of fifteen years, but is below the age of eighteen years; and
“youth” means a person between the age of fifteen years and thirty-five years.; and
(b)by the insertion, of the following new definitions in alphabetical order:
“appropriate authority” means an authority responsible for determining the emoluments of public officers, chiefs and members of the House of Chiefs as provided in this Constitution or as prescribed;
“legally disqualified” means a disqualification by a court or quasi-judicial body established by law;
“meeting” means a series of sittings of the National Assembly, for a period beginning when the
National Assembly first sits after being summoned and terminating when the National Assembly is adjourned sine die;
“public body” means the Government, a Ministry or department of the Government, the National
Assembly, the Judicature, a local authority, parastatal, Commission or other body appointed by the Government or established by or under, any law, except a private body and “public bodies” shall be construed accordingly;
“sitting” in relation to a calendar day means the period between the time when the Speaker calls the
Assembly to Order and the time when the Assembly is adjourned; and
“Standing Orders” means the Standing Orders of the National Assembly made under Article 77.
77. Article 272 of the Constitution is amended by the insertion of the words “within such period as it shall determine” between the words “may” and “enact”.
78. The Constitution is amended by the repeal of the Annex.
79. The Constitution is amended by the deletion of—
(a)the words “the Emoluments Commission” wherever the words appear and the substitution therefor of the words “an appropriate authority”;
(b)the words “Director of Public Prosecutions” wherever the words appear and the substitution therefor of the words “Prosecutor-General”;
(c)the words “progressively to districts” and the substitution therefor of the words “to districts progressively”.

Chitambo PF member of parliament Chanda Mutale has confirmed that President Edgar Lungu’s aide Kaizar Zulu beat him up last night.

And Lusaka Province police commissioner Nelson Phiri said police have received the complaint filed against Zulu and are investigating the matter.

Speaking with Daily Revelation, Mutale said he has already been to the hospital and has reported the matter to the Central police in Lusaka.

Mutale said Kaizar, in the company of other thugs, heabutted him on the nose, causing him to bleed profusely.

Narrating how the whole incident unfolded, Mutale said he received a call from him friend Duncan Zulu who invited him for a drink up and Chicago. He said a few moments after arriving at Chicago, a swam of thugs whom he suspected to be UPND cadres appeared, forcing him and his colleague to change their tables. He said noticing danger, he sent a text message to Police Inspector general Kakoma Kanganja allaying him of the danger, and that he also sent another message to Lusaka Province PF youth chairperson Daniel Kalembe, who sent in a few reinforcements. He said after the situation had calmed downed, he and his friend decided to go home, but on leaving the place they met Kaizar by the gate, who convinced them to tarry a bit and they obliged.

Mutale said during their drink up, Kaizar asked him why he had not informed people on their agreement that PF general secretary Davies Mwila was going to challenge President Edgar Lungu for the presidency at the convention.

He said Kaizar also brought in another topic that he needed to meet up with him on his boat, and attempted to give him K150 to use for transport to Kafue so that they could have some private conversation. But on refusing to get the money, Kaizar then opened up, telling him that as provincial chairperson for Central Province he should ensure that he made it possible for Kelvin Bwalya Fube (KBF) to be allowed access to the convention arena.

Mutale said he told Kaizar that he was merely a provincial chairperson, saying the only one who could respond to such matters was Mwila himself.

He said from nowhere, Kaizar shouted orders to his followers to beat him up accusing him of having insulted the President. Mutale narrated that the thugs followed the orders in an instant and started beating him up, saying in the ensuing melee, Kaizar head butted him twice on the nose, causing him to bleed profusely. He said he would have been beaten to death had it not been for some reinforcements sent by Kalembe, who rescued him and took him to the University Teaching Hospital (UTH). He said on arriving at UTH, he found Kaizar and his followers there, saying they wanted to finish him off but could not proceed because matters quietened up after Davies Mwila arrived on the scene.

He said after he was attended to and obtained the medical report, he decided to report the matter to the police, but on reaching the police station, he found Kaizar there again.

“I don’t know how he managed to get there ahead of me. He was even beating on the table that ‘arrest him, he has insulted the President’,” narrated Mutale.

Efforts to talk to Kaizar have proved futile as his mobile phone is off.

And Central Province PF youth chairperson Alice Boka has described Kaizar as an evil man, warning that the youths from the province would go for him.

“We are coming for you even to remove you from your own bedroom. Kaizar you think you are clever, with Central we are not goung to spare you because you have proved to be a snake you devil,” said Boka . – ZWD

Boxing legend Mike Tyson has disclosed that he is “looking forward to dying” because “living is too complicated.”

“Yeah. I don’t fear it,” Tyson told The Sportsman.

“The belief of it. I don’t know if it’s true. Because living takes a lot of courage. Without the courage, you can’t handle living. Living is a journey; living is a struggle. People have everything and they still can’t do it, they struggle.

We take ourselves too seriously. We think we’re somebody. Who the fu*k? We’re nothing! We come from sh*t; we think we’re special! Fame is sh*t,” he added.

Earlier this month, Tyson opened up on how retiring from boxing has left him feeling “empty”.

The boxer who retired 15 years ago revealed that his turbulent past made him miss the sport that brought him fame and wealth.

In an interview with another heavyweight legend, ‘Sugar’ Ray Leonard, Tyson spoke extensively on how he transitioned from being the most feared fighter on the planet to focusing on the “the art of humbleness”.

“Iknow the art of fighting, I know the art of war. That’s all I’ve ever studied. That’s why I’m so feared, that’s why they feared me when I was in the ring. I was an annihilator, that’s all I was born for.

“Now those days are gone. It’s empty, I’m nothing,” Tyson said emotionally.

“I’m working on being the art of humbleness. That’s the reason I’m crying, ’cause I’m not that person no more, and I miss him.”

Tyson made his professional debut at the age of 18 years old, he maintained the record as the youngest heavyweight boxer ever. He is considered one of the greatest of all time and he is the third-longest unified championship reign in heavyweight history at eight consecutive defenses.

He won his first 19 professional fights by knockout, 12 of them in the first round.

Despite his glittering career, Tyson was hit hard in 1991 after he was convicted of raping former beauty pageant contestant Desiree Washington in a hotel room – this was at the peak of his career.

After the judicial process, he was found guilty and sentenced to six years in prison. He served three years before he was released on parole. Before that, his wife, actress Robin Givens, in an interview in 1988, disclosed that she was a victim of spousal abuse.

After his retirement in 2005, Tyson was occasionally caught on the wrong side of the law.

Notwithstanding, the boxer is currently cashing in on the marijuana business. The 53-year-old, at the moment, sells around $500,000 worth of cannabis each month, he said on his Hotboxin’ podcast.

The former heavyweight champion further disclosed that he smokes $40,000 worth of pot every month, around ten tons of weed at his 420-acre ranch in California called Tyson Ranch which accommodated cannabis-friendly hotels and a golf course.

Tyson currently ranks No. 15 in BoxRec’s ranking of the greatest heavyweight boxers in history.

After his induction into the International Boxing Hall of Fame and the World Boxing Hall of Fame, Sky Sports described him as “perhaps the most ferocious fighter to step into a professional ring”. He has been inducted into the Now, Mike Tyson says he is afraid of the person he was.

By Michael Chishala

Imagine it is 2014 and Dr Guy Scott is acting as President of the Republic of Zambia after the death of President Michael Sata. He somehow manages to get the Zambia Constitution Amendment Act of 2016 passed in Parliament and signed into law during the 90 days he is acting. He then calls the Attorney General to render a legal opinion on his new status after the Constitution has been amended. Other prominent Constitutional lawyers are also consulted.

Next thing, he calls a Cabinet meeting and presentations are made by the Attorney General, Solicitor General and other lawyers. Afterwards, Dr Scott announces to Cabinet that based on the legal opinions they have just heard, he should be immediately sworn in as President because the amended Constitution provides for the sitting Vice-President to be sworn in when the incumbent is no more. Some Ministers agree with his position but many others disagree because they are eyeing his seat. The Cabinet meeting extends into a lengthy debate for several hours running deep into the night.

Dr Scott’s opponents point out that before the 2016 Constitution came into effect, there was no provision for an appointed Vice-President to immediately assume office. He therefore has no legal basis to be sworn in as president. They point out that what he is doing amounts to retroactively applying a law which did not exist previously when he was just an appointed Veep. Moreover, they say, the transitional provisions which provide for what will happen during the interim period leading up to the full application of the new Constitutional order in August 2016 do not explicitly allow him to complete the remainder of Mr Sata’s term.

However, Dr Scott’s supporters counter that a literalist interpretation of the law is unfair. They argue that to all intents and purposes, Guy Scott fits into the role of an elected running mate. They say that the framers of the constitution clearly wanted to get rid of costly Presidential by-elections after the experience Zambia has had in 2008 and 2014 of sitting Presidents dying in office. So according to the spirit of the law, Dr Scott being sworn in achieves this purpose.

Whether he himself was on the ballot alongside Mr Sata is immaterial since in the eyes of Zambians, he was part of the ticket and was already known as number two to Mr Sata. Any questions of citizenship for Dr Scott have already been settled by the amended Constitution since it is no longer a requirement for his parents to have been Zambians (whatever that means in the pre-1964 era). Furthermore, it is argued that one must take a holistic approach and not be stuck on the exact letter of the law but rather what it is meant to achieve. This called the “Purposive” (or spirit of the law) interpretation as opposed to the “Literalist” (or letter of the law) approach.

One Cabinet Minister then points out that the Purposive method only applies when the Literalist interpretation produces an absurdity or an ambiguity. Neither of the two apply because the law is very clear with no uncertainty or absurd outcome. Dr Scott was not directly elected by the people so therefore cannot be sworn in. Moreover, appeals to “unfairness” only affect Dr Scott and cannot be the basis of making such a momentous decision for the whole country.

Another minister stands up and argues that this line of thinking is wrong because although there is no debate on the Constitution barring Dr Scott from assuming office based on the strict letter of the law as written, the transitional provisions recognise his currently running acting presidency since it is obviously not possible to fully comply with the amended Constitution. They explain that it is not possible to immediately produce a Vice-president who was a running mate to the president since the previous elections were held under different rules. Dr Scott is still exercising the executive functions of the president as if Zambia was still under the rules of the 1991 Constitution (amended in 1996). Not everything in the amended 2016 Constitution has come into effect whilst other things have, such as the Grade 12 Certificate requirement for contesting elections which is immediate.

The debate eventually ends up focusing on the transitional provisions. The essential question then becomes whether the transitional provisions are adequate to cover Dr Scott’s unique situation. His supporters say they are ambiguous and would require interpretation by a competent court based on the purposive method of interpretation. However, in the absence of a lawsuit, there is nothing stopping Dr Scott from being sworn in as there is some leeway in the amended 2016 Constitution.

And so the following day, Dr Scott is sworn in as 6th President of Zambia to serve the remainder of the term of Mr Sata. This action sharply divides opinion and ignites a fierce debate on radio, television, print, Internet and social media with passionate arguments from both sides. Finally, someone who supports Dr Scott decides to pre-emptively file a case in the Constitutional Court for determination of his eligibility to take over as full president.

—

Now imagine that it is January 2016. President Edgar Lungu has just signed into law the 2016 Constitution Amendment Act to much fanfare. Two weeks later, a large business delegation from another country jets in for a previously scheduled meeting. They sit, discuss, sign agreements and do a photo shoot shaking hands.

In February 2016, President Lungu goes to see a doctor as he is not feeling well. After examination, it turns out he has contracted a new disease. The country from which the business delegation came from is the origin and epicenter of the disease. A few phone calls later, it is established that everyone in that delegation became sick a week after the meeting. The doctors tell the president he has about one week to decide his fate. The president ponders his situation and finally decides to resign from office for health reasons.

He calls his Vice-President Madam Inonge Wina and informs her of the situation. He then goes into a Cabinet meeting with his Veep and makes the announcement as he hands in his resignation letter. All his ministers are shocked, but totally support his decision because the last thing Zambians would want to see is their president being sick and incoherent on TV as they have flashbacks to what happened with President Sata in Parliament in 2014.

The President has a national address the same day announcing his resignation and Madam Wina immediately begins acting as president in March 2016. It doesn’t take too long for people to begin raising questions about her status as acting president vis-a-vis the amended Constitution. She calls the Attorney General and has a lengthy discussion with him about the issue. The main question to resolve is whether she must remain as an acting president under the 1991 rules or she must be sworn in as president since she was the Veep previously.

She calls for a Cabinet meeting and the matter is tabled for debate. A lot of other issues and complications come up as the main question is debated. If she continues under the Constitution 1991 rules, then she can only act as president for 90 days. But that would mean having a presidential by-election in June 2016 with about 2 months to go before the August 2016 General Election which would still have to be held. This is potentially a big crisis due to the huge cost and complicated logistics of holding two national elections within a 3 month period. The results of the presidential by-election would be contested in court as it is likely to suffer from irregularities owing to the short time involved.

The transitional provisions are consulted but they contain nothing explicit and very specific to this kind of situation. All they say in Section 7(2) is that the Vice-president continues as before during the transition unless terminated by the president. But there is no President any more. After a lengthy debate, the Cabinet finally resolves that the only two workable solutions would be to either go back to Parliament and introduce a new emergency Bill to modify and clarify the transitional provisions with respect to the tenure of the acting president, or for Ms Wina to just be immediately sworn in as president, despite her not being elected.

The first solution depends on the opposition voting for it. If they vote against it, the threatened constitutional crisis would now become real and full blown and this would suit the opposition. As one minister quickly points out, the second option would lead to an immediate challenge in the courts of law by the opposition and that pesky lawyer John Sangwa and his side-kick Keith Mweemba, joined by the troublesome Linda Kasonde. Damn, this is becoming too complicated to deal with! Finally after much debate, Cabinet resolves to go for option two.

A few days later, Madam Inonge Wina is sworn in as 6th President of Zambia to serve the remainder of the term of Mr Sata. This action sharply divides opinion and ignites a fierce debate as someone who supports Ms Wina pre-emptively files a case in the Constitutional Court for determination of her eligibility to take over as full president.

—

Having laid the ground work with two important thought experiments, let us now properly examine the ruling of the Constitutional Court in the case of the eligibility of President Edgar Lungu contesting for another term starting in 2021. Despite the case being disposed of, the debate about the eligibility has recently come back and grown stronger with neither side willing to concede any ground. First a brief recap.

The summary of the position of the “Yes Camp”, those who support President Lungu is that we must use the purposive interpretation of the law in deciding this question. It is clear that the intention of the Legislature was to enable any new president to serve a substantial portion of the remainder of the term of office of their predecessor once a vacancy occurs. This is to allow them to achieve their agenda as president. Hence the introduction of the “Three Year Rule” which says that for the purposes of counting terms of office, any term less than 3 years does not count in determining whether someone has “twice held office” as per Clause 106(3).

As the Constitutional Court correctly noted in its judgment on page 78, it is possible for someone to serve as president for a maximum of almost 13 years (12 years, 12 months and 29 days). ie two five year terms and one term under 3 years to complete the term of a former incumbent. As an interesting side note, what would stop someone getting elected and resigning one day short of 3 years and then letting his Vice complete his term? Then at the next election, he runs again and serves another 3 years minus one day and repeats the same thing. Then he finally serves his two five year terms. He could easily serve 20 years plus this way. Although it is an extremely unlikely hypothetical situation, it exposes another lacuna with our Constitution.

Getting back to the issue, the “Yes Camp” who support President Lungu argue that he can run again since his first term of 18 months did not count as per the Three Year Rule as defined in Clause 106(6). The Court agreed with this position and ruled accordingly, although for different reasons. More on this soon.

The “No Camp” who oppose President Lungu’s Third Term bid argue that his first term must also be counted under the strict letter of the law. He has “twice held office” as the Constitution clearly states and is therefore not eligible to run again. Even if we want to apply the Three Year Rule to him, he does not qualify because that rule is only applied when either a Vice President who was a Running Mate takes over, or someone else is elected because the Veep could not take over for some reason. This is in Clause 106(5).

The Constitutional Court competently handled and addressed all these arguments from both sides in their ruling. They did not directly disagree with the main arguments of the No Camp but they did however reject the Yes Camp argument of leaning entirely on the purposive Interpretation method. The Court held, as it has before, that the sequence is to first use the literal method and then move to the purposive approach only if there is an ambiguity or absurdity in the application of the law.

Towards the end of the judgment on pages 79 and 80, it becomes clear that this entire case rested on the transitional provisions. As the Court correctly noted, there is authority and legal precedent for a court to clarify a law where there is either ambiguity or absurdity in its application.

The Court held that although there were transitional provisions drafted, they did not fully address the unique situation presented by the Edgar Lungu term which straddled two constitutional eras (page 79). They noted that there was no explicit mention in the transitional provisions on how his term would be treated with respect to the Three Year Rule. In saying this, they rejected the argument of the No Camp that there is no ambiguity on this issue in the amended Constitution.

The Court went on to say that it was not the intention of the framers of the Constitution to deliberately not deal with how the Three Year Rule applies to President Lungu’s first term (page 80-81). The Court appeared to have inferred that the treatment of the Lungu first term was somehow implied within the new 2016 rules. Therefore, according to the Court, we must not count the Lungu first term as per Article 106(6). This is on page 83 of the judgment.

The Court also on page 83 refused to make a ruling on whether President Lungu is eligible because in their words, the matter was “otoise”, in view of their position on the Lungu first term not counting as a full term. For most of us not steeped in legal jargon, to be “otoise” simply means to be redundant or pointless, serving no practical purpose or result.

ANALYSIS
The main bone of contention against the Court’s decision is their interpretation of the transitional provisions. Their judgment was that the transitional provisions are ambiguous vis-a-vis the Three Year Rule, but this is a rather dubious claim. In the transitional provisions, it states the following in the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1 of 2016 in Section 7(1):

“The President shall continue to serve as President for the unexpired term of that office as specified by the Constitution in accordance with the Constitution.”

Furthermore, in Section 2(1), it says:

“In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires – ‘Constitution’ means the Constitution of Zambia, 1991, in force immediately before the effective date; ‘effective date’ means the date of the commencement of this Act and the Constitution as amended as provided in section four;”

Therefore, a clearer rendering of the transitional provisions in Section 7(1) is as follows:

“The President shall continue to serve as President for the unexpired term of that office as specified by the [1991] Constitution in accordance with the [1991] Constitution.”
(emphasis and clarification added)

This clearly proves that the entire first term of President Lungu up to August 2016 was to be governed by the 1991 rules and not any of the new 2016 rules. Therefore we cannot apply the Three Year Rule (or any other new rule) to his first term because this rule was not part of the earlier 1991 rules under which he was elected. We can only apply new rules in this particular case if the transitional provisions explicitly allow us to do so.

Moreover Section 6(1) of the transitional provisions stated the following:

“Subject to the other provisions of this Act, and so far as they are not inconsistent with the [1991] Constitution as amended, existing laws shall continue in force after the commencement of this Act as if they had been made in pursuance of the [1991] Constitution as amended, but shall be construed with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to bring them into conformity with the [1991] Constitution as amended.”
(emphasis and clarification added)

This proves further that the 1991 rules governing the first term of Mr Lungu were supreme and still remained in force during the transition as if they were part of the 2016 amended Constitution, despite the amendments introducing new conditions that did not exist before. The new conditions could not be applied to the Lungu first term because it was being governed by the 1991 rules during the transition between January and August 2016.

Contrary to the judgment on pages 79 and 80, the transitional provisions adequately provided for how to treat the Lungu first term. Meaning that if there was anything not explicitly stated, all you had to do was refer to the 1991 rules (with the 1996 Amendments). This now brings us to the final point.

NEW VERSUS AMENDED CONSTITUTION
The United Kingdom, our former colonial masters, does not have a written Constitution. When Zambia was under British rule, it was governed largely by English Common Law without a written Constitution and with other additional local laws made by the Northern Rhodesia Legislature.

In 1964, Zambia got its first written Constitution which even specified that Kenneth Kaunda would be the first President. Nine years later in 1973, Kaunda introduced a One Party State and through Parliament repealed and replaced the 1964 Constitution with a brand new one in which the PIG (Party and It’s Government) was supreme.

Seventeen years later, another brand new Constitution was enacted in 1991 to replace the 1973 Constitution and the PIG was overthrown at the elections that same year. In the opening paragraph, Constitution 1991 states the following:

“An Act to provide for a new Constitution of the Republic of Zambia and to repeal the Constitution of Zambia Act, 1973, and the Constitution scheduled there to, and to provide for matters connected with or incidental to the foregoing.”

Then in 1996, the Constitution was amended with new provisions added. Twenty years later, another round of amendments were added in 2016. Therefore, what we are using now is actually the 1991 Constitution amended twice. It is not a new Constitution to replace an old one as happened in 1973 and 1991.

This particular point is important to rebut the ruling of the court because it means that all terms served by any president between 1991 to date must be counted using the rules in effect at the time they were served. It is still the same Constitution since 1991, but with added amendments that cannot be applied retrospectively, unless there is explicit provision for this in the transitional provisions, which there isn’t.

If the 2016 Constitution was a brand new one, there would be merit in the argument that all terms of office previously served would be reset to zero. This is actually what happened in 1991 and made it possible for Dr Kaunda to contest again despite him having already served more than two terms when term limits were introduced in 1991. The Court alluded to this on page 70 of their judgment.

Since we have already established that the Lungu first term was to be governed using the 1991 Constitutional rules in force immediately preceding the 2016 amendments as per the transitional provisions already quoted, the term served from January 2015 to September 2016 must therefore be counted as a full term for the purposes of Article 106(3),(5) and (6).

—

POSTSCRIPT

1. Many commentators have claimed that the Court did not declare Edgar Lungu eligible to run in 2021 since they refused to specifically answer that question. This is not correct. The fact that they ruled that his first term should not be considered a full term for the purposes of the Three Year Rule obviously means that he is eligible according to their ruling. That is why they said the second question was “otoise”.

2. The logical application of the reasoning of the Court judgment means that both Guy Scott and Inonge Wina are immediately sworn in as President after a vacancy in our two thought experiments at the beginning of this article. This would undoubtedly be a reductio ad absurdum situation because neither was directly elected with the President under the old 1991 rules but were merely appointed. The Court’s argument on page 82 second paragraph that one cannot cherry-pick the application of the Clauses that deal with the same subject is untenable under our circumstances because it is not always possible to apply all the new rules that are introduced in the middle of the game.

No matter how you interpret all the Clauses taken together that deal with the Vice-President for example, there is no scenario where it would make logical sense to swear in an appointed Veep as per Article 106(5)(a) and 112(c) during the transition from one Constitutional era (1991/96) to another (2016). Not unless there is an explicit provision in the transitional provisions to this effect (which there wasn’t). As stated earlier, the Veep was to continue in office as before unless their appointment was terminated by the President. This particular point further proves that the terms of both the President and Veep during the transition were still being governed by the 1991 rules as per Section 7(2) of the transitional provisions (The President does not have power to terminate their Vice-President under the new 2016 rules). Section 7(2) states:

“A person holding the post of Vice-President, Minister or Deputy Minister shall continue to hold that position under the [1991] Constitution until that appointment is terminated by the President in accordance with the [1991] Constitution.”
(emphasis and clarification added)

Moral of the story: draft your transitional provisions very well.

—

About the author

Michael Chishala is a local Zambian analyst and commentator with a strong interest in Philosophy, Law, Economics and Politics.

THE Copperbelt Mine Suppliers and Contractors Association says it is shifting its support from the ruling Patriotic Front to the United Party for National Development leader Hakainde Hichilema.

Association President Bwalya Mufonka told a media briefing in Lusaka today that the dire economic straits the region has found itself due to poor economic management by the PF has forced mine suppliers and contractors to do everything it takes to turn the region into a UPND stronghold.

And President Hakainde Hichilema said all contracts in the mines will be given to Zambian companies and Zambians during the UPND’s time office.

He said this will be supported by legislation that will be put in place by his government.

“I am a concerned businessman, my friends have asked me to come and represent them. Behind us are 10,000 small and medium-sized enterprises on the Copperbelt and North Western province,” said Mr Mufonka.

“I am not here to seek a political position but we want the party to use us as an annex into government like the PF used us in 2011.”

“I am here to build a relationship between the Copperbelt business community and the UPND.

We want you to enact laws that will protect local businesses. When you are in office, we dont expect anyone who is a PF member to lose business or contracts simply because they are PF,” said Mr Mufonka.

He said his association will make sure it raises resources to help grow the party on the Copperbelt adding that “I have put myself on the chopping board by coming out publicly to support Hakainde Hichilema.”

“I know this will bring a lot of problems because of my stance but I thought it’s better we are on the right side of history,” said Mr Mufonka.

Mr Hichilema said once in office his government will put in measures that will benefit local mine suppliers and contractors.

“It will be law under the UPND that mines should be supplied by Zambian companies and Zambians. Under extractive industries, all licences will be issued to Zambians and Zambians alone. Foreign companies and individuals will come in to as partners to finance the projects,” he said.

“Tell your friends and the jerabos that they shouldn’t prepare to attack HH when they hear he is coming. I am their friend and we are coming in to improve the way they do their business.”

*(C) UPND MEDIA TEAM*

Nalikwanda United Party for National Development (UPND) Member of PArliament Profesor Geoffrey Lungwangwa has said that that the fundamental responsibility of all Members of Parliament is to amend the constitution adding that walking away from the House is depriving the electorate a voice.

Speaking at an event of Members of Parliament from the ruling Patriotic Front, UPND, MMD, FDD, and Independent MPs, Prof Lungwangwa said that the Constitution cannot be amended by any institution apart from Parliament.

At the same event, Government Chief Whip Hon Brian Mundubile said that the Government is confident that the new Republican Constitution will speak to the aspirations of the people of Zambia and that was the more reason stakeholders should support the passing of Bill 10 of 2019 in Parliament.

“We in Government are confident that if we amend the current constitution, it will speak to the aspirations of the people of Zambia. This is not a political matter as it has progressive clauses that will help us in the governance system of the country,” he said.

The Members of Parliament took turns in explaining the importance of passing the Bill and strongly condemned other MPs who walked out of Parliament during the Second Reading.

The MPs, who refused to walk out of Parliament when the Constitution Amendment Bill No.10 came up for second reading, contended that they will vote in favour of bill 10 if all the recommendations of the select committee are adopted.

UPND Solwezi West Member of Parliament Teddy Kasonso who was a member of the Select Committee, has explained that he could not walk out of the house when the bill came up for second reading as a member of the select committee.

The MPs in attendance included: Nalikwanda UPND MP Prof. Geoffrey Lungwangwa, Bwana Mkubwa PF MP Hon Jonas Chanda, Kabwe Central PF MP Tutwa Ngulube, Solwezi West UPND MP Teddy Kasonso, Chiengi FDD MP Given Katuta, Sioma Independent MP Nancy Subulwa, Wusakile Independent MP Pavyuma Kalobo, Kasenengwa MP Sensio Banda, Lumezi MP Pilile Here, Lusaka Central MP Margaret Mwanakatwe, Nominated MP Hon Raphael Nakachinda, Serenje MMD MP Maxson Kabanda, Roan NDC MP Joseph Chisala, Muchinga MMD MP Howard Kinda, Sinda MP Masauso Tembo, Chembe MP Hon Sebastian Kopulande and Bangweulu MP Anthony Kasandwe, Muchinga MMD MP Howard Kunda, among other MPs.

BARS VS CHURCHES – MY HUMBLE ADVICE TO CHURCHES

My views below are submitted in utmost humility and cognizance of the fact that many on these platforms are senior to me in life and ministry and thus I am subject to correction. Especially if I may be missing some spiritual wisdom somewhere but I humbly submit my thoughts as a son in the land.

My views are summarized below :

1. Government has so far demonstrated a clear intent to save lives. This should be centre of our focus and it deserves our support.

2. With or without bars we must think of what we should be doing to keep our members safe. For a well developed church, members include newly born agains(those new to the faith) , the mature, infants, children and youths.

We must not allow the case of how bars are being treated to have us lose focus of what we should be doing. The bars issue should follow after we have done what we need to do to keep our members safe. We are not people of fear but not everyone is developed enough to observe rules of hygiene or to apply the spiritual authority and wisdom some may have. Eg little children. The same reason schools have closed is the reason we should handle them with caution even at church and this includes even cancelation of some meetings including Sunday service where need be.

3. Our voice towards bars being closed must be driven with a passion to save lives not a quest for fair treatment between bars and churches.

We are too high an institution as the church of Jesus Christ to ask for equal treatment with bars. The church right now should have even made the work of government easy by suggesting temporary suspension of all gatherings, churches and bars inclusive AT LEAST FOR THIS WEEKEND then we resume updates from authorities next week Monday or so with fresh guidelines.

As it is we are pushing in a direction that will just make our government authorities now focus on how to appease the church especially that we can be very emotional about such things.

I appeal that we make things easy for them to help save lives in the country by being clear that we are not starting a bars vs churches noise but merely encouraging them to remain as bold as they have been in shutting schools, markets are closed this weekend, reducing hours for churches etc and extend the same to shutting bars. If need be they can even ask all of us not to meet this weekend. THEIR DRIVE TO SAVE LIVES MUST NOT BE WATERED DOWN BY ANYONE WHETHER BARS OR CHURCHES.

As things are with the noise churches are making we risk having them compromise and increase hours for churches for appeasement even when it may be against health rules. I know it will sound like a victory for churches if we heard an increase in the number of hours to meet but maybe an IMMORAL victory if we got it purely for appeasing this big group called the church yet IN COMPROMISE OF HEALTH RULES.

Let us encourage them to do what is right whether it affects churches or bars and this is where we must voice out against bars being open.

4. Like the Bible shows in Romans 14:1-3 those who choose to meet for church and those who choose not to must not treat either side badly. Both do so after careful prayerful consideration and please do so with a clear conscience as being the watchman on duty AT YOUR DUTY POST. God did not put any of us to decide for everyone.

I humbly submit.

I am a young man by the name of Pastor Choolwe.
President and Founder of Gospel Envoys Church. I heal the sick, I have authority over demons and sickness in the name of Jesus. I also believe that Christ has not only been made the power of God unto us but also WISDOM. There is time to manifest him as power and time to manifest him as wisdom.
#peaceforZambia

CHAGWA HAS CONTRIBUTED TOWARDS MONSTER OF VIOLENCE…the back stops at him to stop it, says Panji

By Patson Chilemba

Edgar Lungu has contributed towards the monster of violence in the PF which is now threatening the security of the country, says ruling PF member Colonel Panji Kaunda.

Speaking with Daily Revelation on the statement by PF national youth chairperson Kelvin Sampa that ruling party youths had no respect for President Edgar Lungu, saying if they could fight each other in his very presence then there was no one else they would fear, Col Panji said Zambians started complaining about the culture of violence in the PF a long time ago, but no action was taken by the leadership to address it, with the President playing a blind eye towards it.

“We have surrendered governance to the streets,” he said.

Col Panji said the youths that had been mobilized over time in the ruling party by selfish individuals to be unleashed on the opposition or those who fell out with the leadership, had now become uncontrollable that they were now unleashing the same violence in the presence of President Lungu.

He said the youths were committing violent acts in the name of the party, yet the leadership was quiet and the police command was impotent to do anything about it. He said the youths that were mobilized to file a petition to have Sampa removed did not obtain a permit yet they were allowed to march freely without any arrest.

Col Panji said everyone in PF was now free to commit crimes in the name of the party, pointing out the recent action where Lusaka Province minister Bowman Lusambo was seen ordering the arrests of people who were buying more than one bag of mealie meal and ordering price controls to the supermarkets, in a country which operates on free market policies.

“I don’t think my President has been as strong against indiscipline as he should be…police can’t move against any party cadre now. Police can’t arrest a party cadre and survive,” Col Panji said. “They have created a monster and now it’s out of control..this is the peak of lawlessness and now it has become a monster. They are law unto themselves. In the name of the President and the party they can beat people.”

Col Panji said the back stopped at the President to end the culture of violence that was defining the PF now.

“If they can fight in his presence, what else can’t they do? It’s a cancer not only to a few of us but all Zambians. It’s now threatening the security of the nation because nobody is safe,” said a Col Panji.

Speaking with Daily Revelation, Sampa said there should be discipline and morals in PF, wondering whom the party youths could ever respect if they could fight each other in the presence of President Lungu, as recently happened during the youth day celebrations.

Sampa said he was extremely disappointed that party youths were beating each other in the presence of the Head of State, saying that was why a warning must be sent to the others that certain people must be dealt with to avoid the reoccurrence of such incidences.

“If they cannot respect the President, in the presence of the President they behave in such a manner, who are they going to respect? That’s why I am saying let the law take its own course,” said Sampa.

…the back stops at him to stop it, says Panji

By Patson Chilemba

Edgar Lungu has contributed towards the monster of violence in the PF which is now threatening the security of the country, says ruling PF member Colonel Panji Kaunda.

Speaking with Daily Revelation on the statement by PF national youth chairperson Kelvin Sampa that ruling party youths had no respect for President Edgar Lungu, saying if they could fight each other in his very presence then there was no one else they would fear, Col Panji said Zambians started complaining about the culture of violence in the PF a long time ago, but no action was taken by the leadership to address it, with the President playing a blind eye towards it.

“We have surrendered governance to the streets,” he said.

Col Panji said the youths that had been mobilized over time in the ruling party by selfish individuals to be unleashed on the opposition or those who fell out with the leadership, had now become uncontrollable that they were now unleashing the same violence in the presence of President Lungu.

He said the youths were committing violent acts in the name of the party, yet the leadership was quiet and the police command was impotent to do anything about it. He said the youths that were mobilized to file a petition to have Sampa removed did not obtain a permit yet they were allowed to march freely without any arrest.

Col Panji said everyone in PF was now free to commit crimes in the name of the party, pointing out the recent action where Lusaka Province minister Bowman Lusambo was seen ordering the arrests of people who were buying more than one bag of mealie meal and ordering price controls to the supermarkets, in a country which operates on free market policies.

“I don’t think my President has been as strong against indiscipline as he should be…police can’t move against any party cadre now. Police can’t arrest a party cadre and survive,” Col Panji said. “They have created a monster and now it’s out of control..this is the peak of lawlessness and now it has become a monster. They are law unto themselves. In the name of the President and the party they can beat people.”

Col Panji said the back stopped at the President to end the culture of violence that was defining the PF now.

“If they can fight in his presence, what else can’t they do? It’s a cancer not only to a few of us but all Zambians. It’s now threatening the security of the nation because nobody is safe,” said a Col Panji.

Speaking with Daily Revelation, Sampa said there should be discipline and morals in PF, wondering whom the party youths could ever respect if they could fight each other in the presence of President Lungu, as recently happened during the youth day celebrations.

Sampa said he was extremely disappointed that party youths were beating each other in the presence of the Head of State, saying that was why a warning must be sent to the others that certain people must be dealt with to avoid the reoccurrence of such incidences.

“If they cannot respect the President, in the presence of the President they behave in such a manner, who are they going to respect? That’s why I am saying let the law take its own course,” said Sampa.

My open letter to the President of the great nation of Zambia H.E Edgar Chagwa Lungu

My message is a simple one, one from a concerned and patriotic young Zambian. Let me start by quoting the 40th President of the United States Ronald Reagan who said, “The greatest leader is not necessarily the one who does the greatest things. He is the one that gets the people to do the greatest things.” I am a strong believer in the following principle; that no one man holds all the solutions, but collectively we can conquer any problem or challenges we face. That’s where leadership comes in, your excellency I feel your role as the head of state of this great nation is to not only provide us with a winning plan but to also stir up in us the spirit to fight through any challenge we face. The battle we are faced with right now will require a collective effort for us to achieve what we all desire, which is Life beyond this pandemic.

This is a trying moment and an unprecedented one, and I do believe that you and your government are trying your best to protect our nation and have the nation do things the right way to survive through this period. You have mentioned countless times that you have appointed men and women who you feel are competent enough in managing our nation, yes these men and women, as you have put it, share your sentiments and opinions and you feel their judgment and words clearly represent your stance and decisions, and you feel that they will communicate effectively and manage us through this time. However, our nation needs more than just management, we need leadership. Like Peter Drucker said, “Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.” Our nation needs your leadership your excellency, I feel you cannot subcontract anyone to give people hope, to assure people that everything will be ok or to earn our trust in your leadership; knowing that you will guide us through this trying time; this leadership duty lies in the man or woman the nation elects as its leader and that man is you.

I write this not to question your ability to lead or to say that you are not working to protect us or that you do not have the best interest of every Zambian, I would like to believe you do and it’s for that reason I write this to you so that you may hear the voice of your people. In my short journey as a leader in my own small sphere of influence, I have learned that true leadership is not the ability to command and do as you will, but it’s the ability to listen and do what’s best for others at the cost of self-interest.

For whatever reason you feel that it’s not necessary to urgently and frequently address the nation in times of crisis, but rather choose to speak to us through a third party, I would like to appeal to you that you reconsider that decision. We need you now more than ever, your excellency, to reassure this nation and this cannot be subcontracted to your ministers, press aid or social media team. The mantle to lead this nation lies in you and not any other man or woman, that great responsibility was placed in your hands by the people of this great nation, and the voice we need to hear at this moment should come from that man in whose hands we put that great responsibility. We need to move as one now more than ever and by your voice being absent in such a time only hinders our mission of collective effort.

My prayer is that you read this message and take this as a humble plea from one of this great nation’s sons and I would like to believe I speak for many; we need your voice and strong visible leadership now more than ever. I pray that we hear that voice now when it’s needed most and not when we begin to fight a battle we can’t contain; containment is now; action is now; prevention is now and your voice and leadership will help us achieve all this and avoid panic and confusion.

May God grant you the wisdom to see this nation through all its challenges.

Yours sincerely

Steven A.M Mwale
A Proud Son Of Mother Zambia

#teamProgress

Press statement for immediate release

20th March 2020

HYPOCRISY OF THE PF ON THE DISABLED

The Republican Constitution is not short of clauses that addresses the inclusion of youths, women and even the physically challenged in the governance system of our country.

It is therefore hypocritical of the highest order for the ruling party (PF) to mislead the nation that youths, women and the physically challenged can only be included in our governance system through the enactment of Bill10.

The current Republican Constitution allows the President to nominate 8 Members of Parliament. In that 8, if President Edgar Lungu wasn’t a hypocrite, he would have nominated 2 youths, 3 women and 3 physically challenged persons to Parliament.

The nomination of 8 Members of Parliament doesn’t require Bill 10, the current Constitution allows it.

But as it stands, he has misused this Constitutional clause by denying youths, women and more especially the physically challenged to also take part in the governance system of the country.

Instead of prioritizing the youths and the disabled, President Lungu has used patronage by nominating Bwalya Ng’andu, Richard Kapita, Raphael Nakachinda, Godfridah Sumaili, Joyce Nonde Simukoko and Nathaniel Mubukwanu to Parliament, and all these are old people who have taken the positions that were supposed to go to the youth and the disabled.

And when it comes to adopting candidates for positions of Councillors, Mayors, Council Chairpersons, MPs and President, our current Republican Constitution allows youths, women and the disabled to also run for these positions.

It doesn’t require Bill 10 for our youths, women and the physically challenged to vie for these positions. It is clearly provided for in the Constitution.

PF’s failure to adopt youths, women and the disabled in elections just shows how less concerned they are for the three groups of people.

Further, the current constitution requires gender balancing to top government positions nominated by the President. But President Lungu again didn’t use the opportunity to nominate women.

And talking about social security, it is clear that PF has no love for people
living with disability.If the PF government was sympathetic to the cause of the disabled as they now claim, they wouldn’t have stolen donor funds that was meant for persons living with disabilities. You don’t need Bill 10 to protect money meant for the disabled in Social Cash Transfer, you need the Police, the Courts and the jails.

So, all in all, the seclusion of youths, women and the disabled in the PF government is not as a result of the absence of the law but the PF’s lack of love for the youths, women and disabled. Citizens are aware from the recent incidencies of gassing, that if the Patriotic Front begins to excitedly issue random statements using ZNBC and their rogue media outlets to point fingers at the UPND, then it means they are deeply involved in the scam.

Samuel Ngwira
Deputy National Youth Chairman
UPND

WE ARE NOT IN SUPPORT OF BILL 10, OUR MP DEFIED PARTY ORDERS

20/03/2020

The National Democratic Congress, NDC, would like to reaffirm the position on Bill 10 that it is not a good law and is still not in support of it.

‘Bill 10 is an affront to our democracy, an insult to Zambians that continuously voiced out their feelings on what they want their constitution to be like and we can never support such a bill,’ NDC president Chishimba Kambwili said.

Our Member of Parliament, honourable Joseph Chishala was given strict instructions to walk out with the UPND MPs when the Bill was brought to Parliament but he defied our orders.

Hon. Joseph Chishala was among the MPs that even attended the meeting at president Hakainde Hichilema’s house the night before the Bill was presented in Parliament to assure them of his vote and he met up with the president and vice president to assure them of the vote.

Other leaders of the party called the MP and he assured everyone of his vote and that despite the PF paying MPs a lot of money to vote for Bill 10, he would still not betray the party, alliance partners and country at large.

It was, therefore, very heartbreaking, shocking and embarrassing for the NDC to witness their only MP stay on in Parliament when he was supposed to walk out with the UPND.

It is always an emotional time when one has been betrayed and right now the party leadership and membership are undergoing a lot of pain and disappointment, and it is so hard to believe that someone we worked so hard for has done such a thing to us.

It has even been very hard on the membership of the party, especially that a key member of the party was even killed because of the Roan by elections. Obed Kasongo deserved to be honoured and respected for how he lost his life trying to help Chishala win the elections, and this betrayal is an insult to his memory and sacrifice for the party and Chishala in particular.

It is also not a secret that Roan was won as a joint effort of the NDC and UPND and Chishala’s loyalty should have been to both the NDC and UPND. The strength of the Alliance was tested in Roan and the victory was an Alliance victory.

‘We are short for words right now and we shall issue a comprehensive statement later,’ Dr. Chishimba Kambwili said.

*Issued by Saboi Imboela*
*Spokesperson NDC*

SOLWEZI UPND member of parliament Teddy Kasonso says he does not see any reason why he should walk out of Parliament when the Constitution Amendment Bill Number 10 is being debated.

When Justice Minister Given Lubinda introduced the controversial Bill for second reading, Tuesday, all UPND members of parliament walked out of the House, save for three who opted to stay, namely: Professor Geoffrey Lungwangwa of Nalikwanda constituency; Kasonso and his Senanga counterpart, Mukumbuta Mulowa.

But in an interview, Kasonso said he did not see the point of walking out as he was still waiting for the amendments which were due to be presented by Lubinda for him to make up his mind on how to vote.

“What was the reason for me to have walked out? Let us wait for the amendments, which will come from the Minister of Justice that is when my position would be known. If PF will bring things that are not in the (Select) Committee recommendations, then I will vote against them. But if they include them, I have no problem. I was part of the Committee, which cleaned up the Constitution. Read the recommendations of the Select Committee and compare it with the proposed Bill by government. Let us see what the PF government will do. Are they going to go by the will of the people who came to submit or not? That is a bigger position. Is there any clause that you think is very contentious, which we, the Committee, did not address? People are saying, ‘no, Cabinet will print money.’ Of course, they brought a lot of proposals we rejected all the contentious issues. We are waiting if they will amend; if they don’t amend, tough luck, nobody can support that,” Kasonso said.

He also refuted reports that he was bought by ruling party agents.

“That is politics! Are you telling me that the people from the other camp that are supporting UPND have also been bought by the UPND? Unless you are me telling that, that is the position. It is principal! I was a member of the Select Committee; why do you want me to run away from the recommendations of the stakeholders of which I was part of? Our Committee was speaking to government to do the right thing, do what people want, that is what I am waiting for. I am not going to run away from the recommendations of the people, no! In fact, you should be asking me why am I not pushing the PF to do the right thing,” argued Kasonso.

President Edgar Lungu’s primary school colleague has testified how he reported New Labour Party president Fresher Siwale to the police for lying that the Head of State stole his identity.

Testifying before magistrate Alice Walusiku was Mr. Dama Banda, 62, a former Head Teacher of Kitwe, who told court that he grew up with President Lungu and walked with him to school as they were neighbours and therefore, Mr. Siwale’s claims are baseless.

On April 22, 2018, with intent to bring the President’s name into ridicule, Mr. Siwale said the Head of State is not Edgar Chagwa Lungu but Jonathan Mutawale and further alleged that the President should be arrested for having three National Registration Cards, calling him an identity thief.

The accused said this during Muvi TV’s The Assignment programme which Mr. Banda also watched.

After this, Mr. Banda reported Mr. Siwale to the police because his claims were not as he personally was the President’s neighbour from 1962 to 1976.

“On April 20, 2018, I came to Lusaka to visit my young sister in Kaunda Square stage one and on Sunday, 22 April, 2018, I was watching a programme which featured Siwale who said the man in State House is not the actual Edgar Lungu and that he is Jonathan Mutawale. That was not true, it occurred to me that Siwale did not in fact know Edgar Lungu. President Lungu is the person I grew up with as a neighbour and I cannot forget him up to this day,” Mr. Banda said.

He said he and President Lungu used to go together to a place called ‘Kwanakayombo’ in Kitwe together to cultivate maize and that they used to play football together.

“During childhood, we used to call the President as Chagwa, we went to Mukuba secondary together in 1973 when I was in form one, in secondary school, he was called Edgar Lungu. He was ahead of me by one year,” Mr. Banda narrated.

Banda said he lived with his family in a rented house owned by Kitwe City Council and that the house in which President Lungu and his family lived was rented by Rhodesian Railways where his father worked.

He insisted that Edgar Lungu, who is in State House, is not an identity fraud.

“After watching the programme, I felt extremely bad that an elderly person can tell lies about a person he does not know, as a childhood friend to President Lungu, I thought I should report the matter to the police,” Mr. Banda said.

He told the court that President Lungu has even adopted a classroom block at Mukuba Secondary School that is named after him and that he also donated a big bus to the institution.

The matter has been adjourned to April 23, 2020 for cross examination.

By Sara Imutowana Yeta II

The Zambian Constitution clearly hammers home that a person who has twice held the office of the president cannot contest for the same office again.

We know that Lungu held office from 2015 to 2016 and held office from 2016 to date.

For this reason, Lungu cannot hold the same office again. It is done!

It is therefore important to advise Lungu to take time to sit back and reflect on his temptation to vie for the presidency again.

He should not fool himself to think he is eligible to stand for elections in 2021.

If he cannot spare a moment for self-reflection on what the Constitution says about twice holding office, then he does not have balls to face his real self and this is likely to bring serious problems to himself.

Lungu should not be fooled by his selfish whims and external voices from cadres to desecrate the Constitution by going for the third term.

Wisdom holds that most mature human insights come from an individual’s introspection rather than from outside investigation.

I therefore, in the spirit of the Zambian Constitution appeal to Lungu to understand that going for the third term will undermine the major constitutional innovations that accompanied the transition from the authoritarian rule to more competitive and pluralistic mode of governance in 1991 through the adoption of presidential term limit.

On a serious note, Lungu must reflect upon his third term bid and reflect on the ramifications of his bid for the rule of law, democracy, and the nature of politics in general.

It is extremely important for him to take a moment out of his busy political life to clarify his Constitutional values, if he has any, to avoid defiling the Constitution through his third term bid to benefit himself and his cronies.

He really needs time for introspection to scrutinise his internal feelings by going inward, to help him to come to terms with the fact that he has twice held office and should peacefully check out of the presidency.

As a lawyer, he should not have problems to take time for introspection to rebuild his lost relation with himself and the Constitution.

It is only through self-assessment that can give him a real picture of how he should conduct himself in relation to what the supreme law of the land says about twice holding office.

His associates should tell him the hard fact that he is not eligible to hold the same office again.

Let him not cause unnecessary problems that may destabilise the country.

It is not too late for him to search his soul and renounce his evil third term bid.

Power is like liquor, it blurs thoughts and judgements making it easy to make monkey decisions that may set the country on a dangerous course.

Taking time to reflect on his life will help him to avoid crappy stuff that is currently consuming his mind-space misleading him to go for the third term.

But then again advising Lungu to reflect is like expecting a rabid dog to take orders because he is a well-known constitutional delinquent who swindled a client, elected party president by raising fists, refused to hand over power during the presidential petition, told his ministers not pay back the money earned after dissolution of parliament, appointed unqualified judges, sworn in by a high court registrar, and the list of his unconstitutional conduct goes on.

Failure to have time for introspection to check out what is hampering his ability to think with clarity and conviction in light of the Constitution will land Lungu in trouble.

Let him do the right thing by getting rid of the unconstitutional third term distractions and bring the focus of his presidency back where it belongs.

He should not look very far to deal with the third term nonsense but right within himself.

It is an observable fact that when people take time out to reflect, they give themselves chance to push a refresh button and purify their evil thought process.

To weed out the third term nonsense, Lungu should sit quietly with himself, talk to himself in a moment of solace purely directed to his own-self.

This is the only way he will align his evil thought process with the Constitution.

I hope Lungu will take time to take the only truthful journey within himself to avoid being his own enemy and enemy of the people by defiling the constitution through his third term bid.