To: The Minister of Justice, Hon. Princess Kasune (Mp), Cabinet and Parliament.
PETITION TO ABOLISH THE GRADE 12 QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR ALL ELECTIVE POSITIONS—A MAGNA CARTER TO THE POOR AND THE UNEDUCATED MAJORITY
Introduction
Firstly, the Patriotic Front (PF) led 2016 Amendment Constitution is a big disaster. It does not speak to itself. It has discrepancies and so much lacunae of immediate need for reflection and possible redress, but it also has an absurdity arising from a leadership insincerity and insensitivity beaming with outright failure to share in the footsore of the people. It takes away the rights of millions and has no recall or proviso for a possible GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL UNITY. It does not address the challenge of our GROWING ETHNICITY DIVIDES.
In this petition to you hon. Minister, as a citizen of Zambia, I want to focus on the UNEDUCATED PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO PART IN THE LEADERSHIP OF THEIR COUNTRY—whose Rights the educated have no right to EXPRESSLY TAKE AWAY. This, I hereafter do with sufficient detail.
The Ploy of Deliberate Omissions
What was seen as a mere political milieu targeting a few political figures from contesting elections turned into a widespread HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION—a bad law construct that excludes millions of citizens from even contemplating taking part in the leadership of the nation, by those that sought to keep power at all costs. Well, this country does not belong to the educated minority alone. It belongs to the uneducated majority too.
How can a constitution fashioned in favour of a small class stand the test of time? Clearly, constitution writing must be founded on solid principles far away from a precipitation of the big man approach to it all as we saw of the Patriotic Front. If this nation is to write a good constitution, we must all take ourselves from our subjective corners to the centre place of NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY—in full favour of the people, and nothing else.
There is no muddle of doubt in my mind, that this administration means well and therefore ought to carry the voice of the people—the downtrodden, illiterate and widely dispossessed—of whom others before it widely considered indifferent.
Elementary Facts
Hon. Minister, your attention is sought to the elementary facts of our Constitution in the Constitutional Amendment of 2016—particularly, to the statement of Article 70 (d) which reads: “(d) has obtained, as a minimum academic qualification, a grade twelve certificate or its equivalent”. This is a blatant violation and dilution of people’s political and civil rights and turns them into privileges. It is an affront on our democracy and gives rise to a class society—the “them and us”. Every leader with a Godly conscience and a good conscious to this nation’s natural ethos, will find reason to contest that part of the Constitution for immediate annulment.
A Grand Disqualification
This country does not belong to the well-educated alone. It belongs to the uneducated too. It is
unjust for those who have grade 12 Certificates to discriminate against those without it. The uneducated do not owe the educated anything. At least not their birth rights to this nation.
Of course, laws are about JUSTICE. They must not only be seen to be JUST. They must be JUST. They must promote and uphold justice for all.
70% of Adults in Zambia Have No Grade 12 Certificates
When Zambia’s sixth President, Edgar Lungu signed into law the 2016 Constitution amendment bill, he and his cohorts were creating a law that, going by the 2013 Census report, systematically and instantly disqualified close to 70% of the adulthood population from seeking election or appointment to public office in their own country. Obviously, this is among our prime problems in this constitution right now.
According to the Central Statistics Office (ZAMSTATS), only 37.3 percent of the population and 31 percent of the adults aged 25 and older, had, by 2013, reached the level of grade twelve (12) and yet this, too, does not mean that they obtained full grade twelve certificates.
The accuracy of these statistics in the affirmative is conservative if we take into account the survey methodologies used, Many are bound to give incorrect information in the affirmative out of something we may consider a form of social stigma. Of course getting to grade twelve (12) is one and obtaining a full grade 12 Certificate another.
Contradicting Constitutional Principles
By introducing the aid qualification, an artificial element was added against the natural right of citizens thereby jeopardizing this right. That become an affront on our democracy and on PART II of our constitutionally acknowledged national values in their entirety. Besides jeopardizing THE PREAMBLE of the 2016 Constitution amendment itself, Article 70 (b) also violates the provision of PART V of our Constitution with regards to Article 45 (a), which states that: “CITIZENS ARE FREE TO EXERCISE THEIR POLITICAL RIGHTS”.
It thus does not only grossly contradict THE PREAMBLE of the Constitution as a supposed solemn statement of sovereign truth, IN FACT (with regards to the UPHOLDING of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of every person and; COMMITTING to uphold the principles of democracy and good governance), but denies a large section of this nation the supposed EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW, insofar as social justice and democratic expression and equality of opportunity, as is a mention of PART II of the Constitution. It profoundly turns the people’s right into a mere privilege. It is thus ultra vires in every sense of the law itself.
A Perishing Civility
This nation has, for a long time until now, lacked leaders with a nationalistic consciousness. Good reason and morality have departed from the mind of most leaders, bespeaking of how far human values and national civility had perished from us at the whims of bad politics, thereby robbing our poor majority of their birthrights such as the one in question.
The UNDP’s View in Favour of the Poor—Closing Disparities
In the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) book titled CHOICES FOR THE POOR, Alejandro Grinspun, a sociologist from Argentina and an Advisor on poverty and other issues in the Bureau for Development Policy of the UNDP in New York, makes a pristine statement of interest in his discussion of the condition of the poor—which to us, is in form of the institutionalised and broad-based legal construct against the majority of this Nation. He says:
“…Poverty stems from disparities in the distribution of POWER, wealth and opportunities. Changing these disparities always risks pitting certain groups against others. Those who benefit from existing arrangements and values are likely to resist efforts to reduce poverty, as they may see their position threatened by any change in the status quo.”
Literacy levels are profoundly low among the poor. Being uneducated is the highest reflection of poverty itself and cannot be used as a way of excluding the poor from power, so much the poor people’s hurdles are multiplied in perpetuity, rather than reduced. We all know that power forms the bedrock of social and economic possibilities themselves. It must be widely purveyed or accessed by the people as their own ignition for initiating means to unshackle themselves from the persistency of lacklustre elements. This is the observed description of poverty itself.
Clearly, the poor are pushed even further away from the margins of participation and this makes them lose the little power they ought to have in order to take part in decisions that can lift them out of poverty. Thereby render them even poorer, where the rich simply buy the required qualification in question.
We therefore cannot continue to raise their reach to power and build barriers that speedily dissolves their rights. We cannot continue to deny fellow citizens in that fashion and refuse to hear their voice as we hide behind the walls of the essence of education itself with profound greed.
And so, here I stand now, Hon. Minister, to speak to your own conscious mind and lay a claim of sufficient good to the real reason of justice, and here in this case, in petition of thee, and by this submission, through you, by equal measure, to all of our esteemed decision-makers of this troubled Republic. This I do, knowing very well that Justice is not only expected form the courts of law alone, but from cabinet too. You, as Ministers are rulers who must rule justly, and do so selflessly.
Equal Rights Between the Uneducated as of the Educated
Obviously, I have the need to give my thoughts with as much clarity and sufficient detail, as my faculties should afford of me and as I should suppose of the extent of the problem at hand—an existential threat to our democracy and state of the nation. All of which begs for a great deal of our circumstantial detail indeed. This must transcend the fuss of competing political interests, and sink into the skulls of our own consciouses so that we should recall that, INJUSTICE ON ONE MAN IS INJUSTICE AGAINST SOCIETY—yes, against THE PEOPLE, as they are supposed at law. It should be one of the fundamental acknowledgements of our natural demand to matters of moral reason and a call for a human rights-based leadership in the promulgation of our laws. This must be far away from yielding to attitudes that typify predatory means in leadership to the extent of George Orwell’s satirical, allegorical novella, THE ANIMAL FARM, wherein, ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT OTHER ANIMALS ARE EVEN MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.
A Repeating Colonialism
What we have in this law in question is a vivid reminder of colonialism and of the apartheid as we witnessed of it with a heart-wrecking agony, next door to us, in South Africa.
It is observed, that in 1962, elections of the Northern-Rhodesia Legislative Council (and the subsequent by-election) were carried out under the 15-15-15 system. This meant that 15 seats were elected by the upper roll of the house, the next 15 the lower roll and the last 15 by the national roll. an encumbrance of But the irony was with THE QUALIFICATION. To qualify to the upper roll, voters had to be QUALIFIED BY INCOME of at least £750 or own at least £1,500 worth of immovable property. In short property rights were used to disadvantage the poor majority. Although the requirement was adjusted downward to £480/£1000 for those with a full primary education and £300/£1000 for those with at least four years of secondary education, the idea was to use both education and property rights to disadvantage the poor majority. THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE CASE OF ARTICLE 70 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Violation of International Law
It is also in international law, that the participation of the people in the governance of their country is a matter of right, which is why the Universal Declaration on Human Rights was unanimously adopted by the United Nations in 1948, to put this right not only in clear perspective, but ground it into international law, and further place it to be an integral role that transparent and open societies apply in the assurance of fundamental rights in all participatory governments.
And so Article 21 of the said UN declaration says that: “Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his/her country, directly or through freely chosen representatives”. Representation here means standing in place of the principle being. It is not representation if the voter does not qualify to the same office. The rule and law of representation is therefore ultra vires if those represented do not qualify to wield the same authority.
The Rule of Representation, vive la différence
Muslims for an instance, can not be represented by Christians the same way that Zimbabweans cannot be represented by Malawians and women can not be represented by men thus the vive la différence.
Going another milestone, international law says, “Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his/her country” by adopting a law that excludes the majority of the country from seeking elective public office; Zambia is in red-light breach of international law to which this State is a party.
If the argument is that the introduction of this law was made in a democratic fashion, then the state and parliament should have every reason to worry that the very low literacy levels makes it extremely difficult for ordinary people to process law proposals.
But what is also certain here is how leaders completely ignore the faintly taunting voice of the people to their ears and yet laws must NOT be made to advantage a few and disadvatange the majority. Clearly, this is a demonstration that leaders only want to hear what they want to hear.
Artcicle 70 is therefore not only in clear contadiction of the provision of the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. It actually brings an open violation of The African Charter on Human Rights which states that: “The member state of the OAU (AU) parties to the present charter shall recognize the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in this chapter and shall undertake to adopt legislative or other measures to give effect to them”, yes, NOT TO ABROGATE THEM.
Article 19 of the AFRICA CHARTER states that, “All peoples shall be equal; they shall enjoy the same respect and shall have the same rights. Nothing shall justify the domination of a people by another”. In other words, the said rights shall have a universal implication in their application and not subject to any secondary law elements, whatseoever. THE PEOPLE OF THIS REPUBLIC MAY BE COMPELLED TO SEEK
REDRESS BY INTERNATIONAL LAW TO THE AFOREMENTIONED.
These rights are simply non-negotiable and they cannot be selectively applied. One may argue that raising the education benchmark among leaders is a relevant aspiration of compelling many to become educated, but this presupposes that the majority have, by their own choice, simply opted out of being educated when in fact it is poverty and the gross inequality of opportunity that prohibited and inhabited access to quality education and on account of poor education policies of successive administrations.
The provision of education is both the responsibility of the government itself and a right for the citizens to enjoy. It cannot be used to disproportionately disadvantage the citizens, needless to say that it is absurd to apply it on majority citizens by way of preclusion from seeking elective public office. Every citizen who is mature enough to make a decision has an expressly implied right to elect and to be elected to public office and this should be the foremost pride in their duty and responsibility to their own country. Yes, there must be qualification and their can be no better and relevant qualification outside citizenship, period.
The Right to Elect Cannot Be Seperated from the Right to Contest Elections
The right to vote or to elect cannot be separated from the right to run for public office. The two are intrictably bound. Even where they are not explicitly stated, they are, all the same, implied. A violation of each one of them is a violation of all of them. Any prejudicial case to one must be foregoing to the other. The stated law grants the other a state of an implied law even where it is not expressly stated.
Our Forefathers Died for all, Not a Section of the Nation
Certainly, our forefathers did not lose everything for the benefit of a small section of the nation. No one procured it from the hand of colonialists on their own individual accord either. It is simply a priceless sovereign nation. It is communal. It must be fully enjoyed in its accommodation of all of its citizens—with the foremost being a way to inaugurate, celebrate and commemorate a nation’s sovereignty. It must assure constant civility by broad participation—granting all a full sense of belonging.
The constitution should therefore extricate this right rather than restrict it, considering that this Republic was not procured by a single person or group of people from God to become a personal enterprise. It is a nation collectively owned by people WITH EQUAL RIGHTS.
Both citizenship (in material observation) and the full exercise of the human faculties of civil liberties are continuous acts of patriotism on which a nation anchors its existence and celebrates its sacred and solemn making. To shortchange citizens on the inalienable rights and fundamental freedoms, political rights and civil liberties fully paid for by that very insistence on freedom by our founding fathers can only be an insular politics of renegade beings. The uneducated can not be made indereferent at our watch. They can not just remain second class citizens, in this country, at our watch.
Rights for the Whole and Not a Part
Those who gave their lives for our freedom gave them for free and in order to free the entire nation and not a section of it. That freedom in perpetuity must be experienced by all—the freedom that is the highest maxim to national patriotism.
President Edgar Lungu, as a lawyer, himself, should have known this all too well to be true. What was expected of him was to lead the frame of the constitution according to National values and democratic reason—putting THE PEOPLE’S INTERESTS FIRST rather than dribble them to the bottom. We need leaders to understand that they hold power on behalf of the people and must therefore be swift at making the rights of the people SELF-EVIDENT in all aspects. That is the only way our solemn dirge to statehood can inaugurate with the people as a constant celebration and commemoration of the people’s own freedom and pursuit of happiness.
Leaders Must Be A True Reflection of Our Society
Of course, our leaders do not come from another planet. They are a standout from within our society and therefore are, as we must see of them in high stations, a true reflection of whom we are. If our leaders are so uneducated, the solution lies in making education even more widely available and not framing a law barrier against the poor and poorly educated from power stations.
Any leader who argues on the current provisions of free education is simplistic of the matter and lacklustre in reason, for there are many factors to consider such as provision per capita, social cultural matters and duration. This education provision is not in restrospect and the people not merely circumspect to its provision.
National leadership should not be a professional occupation. It should not even be remunerated, as such, save for mere living allowance so that leaders do not end up as destitutes of our own civility.
Wherefore Not Seek the Highest Qualification?
If numbers do not bother us in the quality of leaders we call out based on proffesionalism, then we should be going for the very maximum as the minimum rather than basic and a far less consequantial benchmark as the hallmark of our very minimum. This means that the entry to parliament should be by masters degree as a matter of required speciality and a PhD for the President, and that law degrees at masters level forms the required qualification in lawmaking and leadership postions right below the President. But why would that not be the case? Because most of those that constructed this law did not readily and widely posses this qualification, and so they simply settled for the ones they had and did so, without any care of disadvantaging the majority Zambian poor people.Therein lies the rub—THE SELFISHNESS
LEADERS BRING TO HIGH STATIONS.
The Theory of Dr. Francis Chigunta
Going another mile, Dr. Francis Chigunta of the University of Zambia, in his paper titled “Perspectives of Zambia 2016 elections” once introduced another view point that questioned the morality of the constitutional clause in question. He did so, particularly in respect to citizens with higher qualification who did not posses a grade 12 certifacte, addressing the paradoxical requirement:
‘On the one hand, the clause is intended to ensure that better qualified contestants take up political position. On the other hand, the clause will make it difficult for contestants to qualify for political office. Not only is the clause paradoxical, it is also ambiguous and confusing. Does a contestant who possesses a Bachelors, Masters, or even a PhD without a Grade 12 certificate qualify? In some cases, someone can obtain a higher qualification from a prestigious institution of higher learning based on other considerations such as work experience. The Constitutional Court (which is yet to be established), together with the two ECZs (Electoral Commission of Zambia and the Examination Council of Zambia) will have to interpret this’, he wrote.
It is a well-known fact that the Patriot Front (PF) did not care to learn and appreciate the idea of rights and let alone civil liberties and democracy as a matter of practice. They did not understand that democracy and governance is synonymous with PEOPLE PARTICIPATION. They did not understand that a right is natural and comes from God, and that a right ceases to be a right and become a privilege when an academic or professional qualification encumbrance becomes a prerequisite to the right. Rights are simply not hindered by anything of unnatural circumstance. They are natural as of God.
It is now self-evident, that PF foisted laws on the people and it is utterly wrong for anyone now to perpetuate those bad laws, such as the one in question. We must appreciate people’s rights and bear the shame of exclusion even where our own personal circumstances do favour us, alright.
Certainly, it can not only be wrong when a colonialist does it and become so right when the ways of our own brothers and sisters become architectural to such an overbearing fashion of ‘colonialism’.
Clearly, those without the grade 12 certificate have been taken hostage by the well-educated elite few. The questions glaring before our eyes remains: Why do the elite hold such deep aversion to the poor? WHAT DO THEY FEAR IN MAJORITARIANISM? Why do they fear the idea of equal opportunity? Why can’t the educated compete with the uneducated on a field levelled by EQUAL RIGHTS? If we allow the uneducated to contest polls, the educated could well use their comparative advantage to de campaign the least educated, and not to beat their fingers away from it all.
50% -Plus-One vis-à-vis 70% without Grade 12 Certificate, and National Security
We sought a 50%-plus-one to address ourselves to the need for legitimacy even at the risk of a prohibiting cost in re-runs, and considering the aversion this new administration holds to the high costs of running by-elections. But every nationalist will be highly concerned with the people’s need for a greater sense of belonging to the nation. In national security, the people are the last-line of national defence. To do that, the people must retain a full sense of ownership, from which patriotism grows. The raise of a class society and widespread discrimination of the poor does not augment that required sense of nationalism and patriotism. It dissolves it.
Conclusion: in Petition of Thee, Hon. Minister—Through You to Cabinet and Parliament
In the end, no one has any right, whatsoever—not by fiat, to take away the rights of the uneducated to compete, like any other, in their nation. We cannot even afford to ignore 70 percent of this nation only to proffer for inclusion, a smaller section of people and be justified.
Injustice must be stopped. I’m thus persuaded to lay my petition to thee, Hon. Minister and through you to Cabinet and to Parliament, so that, by the work of your own consciouses, you must cause the repeal of Article 70 (b) of the Constitution of Zambia. This we must do with a sense of premonition to the truth which is of the people’s right, whom the educated, powerful and well-connected ought to defend, and politicians such as yourself ought to love beyond a solicitation for votes—by the full application of the principle of equality before the law. The law must not only be seen to presume it EQUAL, when we stand before it. It must presume it even more EQUAL in its construct, and assume it hereditary to all, so much that we should not have to suffer any such perdition into the old ways ever again. THOSE WITHOUT GRADE 12 CERTIFICATES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED SECOND CLASS CITIZENS IN THEIR NATION.
And so, what could possibly nullify the pain of such a creaking class divide that negates fellows, except that we be just, as of God, for our equals?
SIKWINDI SITULA
Phone: +260 977 453 132
April 12, 2025To: The Minister of Justice, Hon. Princess Kasune (Mp), Cabinet and Parliament.
PETITION TO ABOLISH THE GRADE 12 QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR ALL ELECTIVE POSITIONS—A MAGNA CARTER TO THE POOR AND THE UNEDUCATED MAJORITY
Introduction
Firstly, the Patriotic Front (PF) led 2016 Amendment Constitution is a big disaster. It does not speak to itself. It has discrepancies and so much lacunae of immediate need for reflection and possible redress, but it also has an absurdity arising from a leadership insincerity and insensitivity beaming with outright failure to share in the footsore of the people. It takes away the rights of millions and has no recall or proviso for a possible GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL UNITY. It does not address the challenge of our GROWING ETHNICITY DIVIDES.
In this petition to you hon. Minister, as a citizen of Zambia, I want to focus on the UNEDUCATED PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO PART IN THE LEADERSHIP OF THEIR COUNTRY—whose Rights the educated have no right to EXPRESSLY TAKE AWAY. This, I hereafter do with sufficient detail.
The Ploy of Deliberate Omissions
What was seen as a mere political milieu targeting a few political figures from contesting elections turned into a widespread HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION—a bad law construct that excludes millions of citizens from even contemplating taking part in the leadership of the nation, by those that sought to keep power at all costs. Well, this country does not belong to the educated minority alone. It belongs to the uneducated majority too.
How can a constitution fashioned in favour of a small class stand the test of time? Clearly, constitution writing must be founded on solid principles far away from a precipitation of the big man approach to it all as we saw of the Patriotic Front. If this nation is to write a good constitution, we must all take ourselves from our subjective corners to the centre place of NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY—in full favour of the people, and nothing else.
There is no muddle of doubt in my mind, that this administration means well and therefore ought to carry the voice of the people—the downtrodden, illiterate and widely dispossessed—of whom others before it widely considered indifferent.
Elementary Facts
Hon. Minister, your attention is sought to the elementary facts of our Constitution in the Constitutional Amendment of 2016—particularly, to the statement of Article 70 (d) which reads: “(d) has obtained, as a minimum academic qualification, a grade twelve certificate or its equivalent”. This is a blatant violation and dilution of people’s political and civil rights and turns them into privileges. It is an affront on our democracy and gives rise to a class society—the “them and us”. Every leader with a Godly conscience and a good conscious to this nation’s natural ethos, will find reason to contest that part of the Constitution for immediate annulment.
A Grand Disqualification
This country does not belong to the well-educated alone. It belongs to the uneducated too. It is
unjust for those who have grade 12 Certificates to discriminate against those without it. The uneducated do not owe the educated anything. At least not their birth rights to this nation.
Of course, laws are about JUSTICE. They must not only be seen to be JUST. They must be JUST. They must promote and uphold justice for all.
70% of Adults in Zambia Have No Grade 12 Certificates
When Zambia’s sixth President, Edgar Lungu signed into law the 2016 Constitution amendment bill, he and his cohorts were creating a law that, going by the 2013 Census report, systematically and instantly disqualified close to 70% of the adulthood population from seeking election or appointment to public office in their own country. Obviously, this is among our prime problems in this constitution right now.
According to the Central Statistics Office (ZAMSTATS), only 37.3 percent of the population and 31 percent of the adults aged 25 and older, had, by 2013, reached the level of grade twelve (12) and yet this, too, does not mean that they obtained full grade twelve certificates.
The accuracy of these statistics in the affirmative is conservative if we take into account the survey methodologies used, Many are bound to give incorrect information in the affirmative out of something we may consider a form of social stigma. Of course getting to grade twelve (12) is one and obtaining a full grade 12 Certificate another.
Contradicting Constitutional Principles
By introducing the aid qualification, an artificial element was added against the natural right of citizens thereby jeopardizing this right. That become an affront on our democracy and on PART II of our constitutionally acknowledged national values in their entirety. Besides jeopardizing THE PREAMBLE of the 2016 Constitution amendment itself, Article 70 (b) also violates the provision of PART V of our Constitution with regards to Article 45 (a), which states that: “CITIZENS ARE FREE TO EXERCISE THEIR POLITICAL RIGHTS”.
It thus does not only grossly contradict THE PREAMBLE of the Constitution as a supposed solemn statement of sovereign truth, IN FACT (with regards to the UPHOLDING of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of every person and; COMMITTING to uphold the principles of democracy and good governance), but denies a large section of this nation the supposed EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW, insofar as social justice and democratic expression and equality of opportunity, as is a mention of PART II of the Constitution. It profoundly turns the people’s right into a mere privilege. It is thus ultra vires in every sense of the law itself.
A Perishing Civility
This nation has, for a long time until now, lacked leaders with a nationalistic consciousness. Good reason and morality have departed from the mind of most leaders, bespeaking of how far human values and national civility had perished from us at the whims of bad politics, thereby robbing our poor majority of their birthrights such as the one in question.
The UNDP’s View in Favour of the Poor—Closing Disparities
In the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) book titled CHOICES FOR THE POOR, Alejandro Grinspun, a sociologist from Argentina and an Advisor on poverty and other issues in the Bureau for Development Policy of the UNDP in New York, makes a pristine statement of interest in his discussion of the condition of the poor—which to us, is in form of the institutionalised and broad-based legal construct against the majority of this Nation. He says:
“…Poverty stems from disparities in the distribution of POWER, wealth and opportunities. Changing these disparities always risks pitting certain groups against others. Those who benefit from existing arrangements and values are likely to resist efforts to reduce poverty, as they may see their position threatened by any change in the status quo.”
Literacy levels are profoundly low among the poor. Being uneducated is the highest reflection of poverty itself and cannot be used as a way of excluding the poor from power, so much the poor people’s hurdles are multiplied in perpetuity, rather than reduced. We all know that power forms the bedrock of social and economic possibilities themselves. It must be widely purveyed or accessed by the people as their own ignition for initiating means to unshackle themselves from the persistency of lacklustre elements. This is the observed description of poverty itself.
Clearly, the poor are pushed even further away from the margins of participation and this makes them lose the little power they ought to have in order to take part in decisions that can lift them out of poverty. Thereby render them even poorer, where the rich simply buy the required qualification in question.
We therefore cannot continue to raise their reach to power and build barriers that speedily dissolves their rights. We cannot continue to deny fellow citizens in that fashion and refuse to hear their voice as we hide behind the walls of the essence of education itself with profound greed.
And so, here I stand now, Hon. Minister, to speak to your own conscious mind and lay a claim of sufficient good to the real reason of justice, and here in this case, in petition of thee, and by this submission, through you, by equal measure, to all of our esteemed decision-makers of this troubled Republic. This I do, knowing very well that Justice is not only expected form the courts of law alone, but from cabinet too. You, as Ministers are rulers who must rule justly, and do so selflessly.
Equal Rights Between the Uneducated as of the Educated
Obviously, I have the need to give my thoughts with as much clarity and sufficient detail, as my faculties should afford of me and as I should suppose of the extent of the problem at hand—an existential threat to our democracy and state of the nation. All of which begs for a great deal of our circumstantial detail indeed. This must transcend the fuss of competing political interests, and sink into the skulls of our own consciouses so that we should recall that, INJUSTICE ON ONE MAN IS INJUSTICE AGAINST SOCIETY—yes, against THE PEOPLE, as they are supposed at law. It should be one of the fundamental acknowledgements of our natural demand to matters of moral reason and a call for a human rights-based leadership in the promulgation of our laws. This must be far away from yielding to attitudes that typify predatory means in leadership to the extent of George Orwell’s satirical, allegorical novella, THE ANIMAL FARM, wherein, ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT OTHER ANIMALS ARE EVEN MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.
A Repeating Colonialism
What we have in this law in question is a vivid reminder of colonialism and of the apartheid as we witnessed of it with a heart-wrecking agony, next door to us, in South Africa.
It is observed, that in 1962, elections of the Northern-Rhodesia Legislative Council (and the subsequent by-election) were carried out under the 15-15-15 system. This meant that 15 seats were elected by the upper roll of the house, the next 15 the lower roll and the last 15 by the national roll. an encumbrance of But the irony was with THE QUALIFICATION. To qualify to the upper roll, voters had to be QUALIFIED BY INCOME of at least £750 or own at least £1,500 worth of immovable property. In short property rights were used to disadvantage the poor majority. Although the requirement was adjusted downward to £480/£1000 for those with a full primary education and £300/£1000 for those with at least four years of secondary education, the idea was to use both education and property rights to disadvantage the poor majority. THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE CASE OF ARTICLE 70 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Violation of International Law
It is also in international law, that the participation of the people in the governance of their country is a matter of right, which is why the Universal Declaration on Human Rights was unanimously adopted by the United Nations in 1948, to put this right not only in clear perspective, but ground it into international law, and further place it to be an integral role that transparent and open societies apply in the assurance of fundamental rights in all participatory governments.
And so Article 21 of the said UN declaration says that: “Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his/her country, directly or through freely chosen representatives”. Representation here means standing in place of the principle being. It is not representation if the voter does not qualify to the same office. The rule and law of representation is therefore ultra vires if those represented do not qualify to wield the same authority.
The Rule of Representation, vive la différence
Muslims for an instance, can not be represented by Christians the same way that Zimbabweans cannot be represented by Malawians and women can not be represented by men thus the vive la différence.
Going another milestone, international law says, “Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his/her country” by adopting a law that excludes the majority of the country from seeking elective public office; Zambia is in red-light breach of international law to which this State is a party.
If the argument is that the introduction of this law was made in a democratic fashion, then the state and parliament should have every reason to worry that the very low literacy levels makes it extremely difficult for ordinary people to process law proposals.
But what is also certain here is how leaders completely ignore the faintly taunting voice of the people to their ears and yet laws must NOT be made to advantage a few and disadvatange the majority. Clearly, this is a demonstration that leaders only want to hear what they want to hear.
Artcicle 70 is therefore not only in clear contadiction of the provision of the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. It actually brings an open violation of The African Charter on Human Rights which states that: “The member state of the OAU (AU) parties to the present charter shall recognize the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in this chapter and shall undertake to adopt legislative or other measures to give effect to them”, yes, NOT TO ABROGATE THEM.
Article 19 of the AFRICA CHARTER states that, “All peoples shall be equal; they shall enjoy the same respect and shall have the same rights. Nothing shall justify the domination of a people by another”. In other words, the said rights shall have a universal implication in their application and not subject to any secondary law elements, whatseoever. THE PEOPLE OF THIS REPUBLIC MAY BE COMPELLED TO SEEK REDRESS BY INTERNATIONAL LAW TO THE AFOREMENTIONED.
These rights are simply non-negotiable and they cannot be selectively applied. One may argue that raising the education benchmark among leaders is a relevant aspiration of compelling many to become educated, but this presupposes that the majority have, by their own choice, simply opted out of being educated when in fact it is poverty and the gross inequality of opportunity that prohibited and inhabited access to quality education and on account of poor education policies of successive administrations.
The provision of education is both the responsibility of the government itself and a right for the citizens to enjoy. It cannot be used to disproportionately disadvantage the citizens, needless to say that it is absurd to apply it on majority citizens by way of preclusion from seeking elective public office. Every citizen who is mature enough to make a decision has an expressly implied right to elect and to be elected to public office and this should be the foremost pride in their duty and responsibility to their own country. Yes, there must be qualification and their can be no better and relevant qualification outside citizenship, period.
The Right to Elect Cannot Be Seperated from the Right to Contest Elections
The right to vote or to elect cannot be separated from the right to run for public office. The two are intrictably bound. Even where they are not explicitly stated, they are, all the same, implied. A violation of each one of them is a violation of all of them. Any prejudicial case to one must be foregoing to the other. The stated law grants the other a state of an implied law even where it is not expressly stated.
Our Forefathers Died for all, Not a Section of the Nation
Certainly, our forefathers did not lose everything for the benefit of a small section of the nation. No one procured it from the hand of colonialists on their own individual accord either. It is simply a priceless sovereign nation. It is communal. It must be fully enjoyed in its accommodation of all of its citizens—with the foremost being a way to inaugurate, celebrate and commemorate a nation’s sovereignty. It must assure constant civility by broad participation—granting all a full sense of belonging.
The constitution should therefore extricate this right rather than restrict it, considering that this Republic was not procured by a single person or group of people from God to become a personal enterprise. It is a nation collectively owned by people WITH EQUAL RIGHTS.
Both citizenship (in material observation) and the full exercise of the human faculties of civil liberties are continuous acts of patriotism on which a nation anchors its existence and celebrates its sacred and solemn making. To shortchange citizens on the inalienable rights and fundamental freedoms, political rights and civil liberties fully paid for by that very insistence on freedom by our founding fathers can only be an insular politics of renegade beings. The uneducated can not be made indereferent at our watch. They can not just remain second class citizens, in this country, at our watch.
Rights for the Whole and Not a Part
Those who gave their lives for our freedom gave them for free and in order to free the entire nation and not a section of it. That freedom in perpetuity must be experienced by all—the freedom that is the highest maxim to national patriotism.
President Edgar Lungu, as a lawyer, himself, should have known this all too well to be true. What was expected of him was to lead the frame of the constitution according to National values and democratic reason—putting THE PEOPLE’S INTERESTS FIRST rather than dribble them to the bottom. We need leaders to understand that they hold power on behalf of the people and must therefore be swift at making the rights of the people SELF-EVIDENT in all aspects. That is the only way our solemn dirge to statehood can inaugurate with the people as a constant celebration and commemoration of the people’s own freedom and pursuit of happiness.
Leaders Must Be A True Reflection of Our Society
Of course, our leaders do not come from another planet. They are a standout from within our society and therefore are, as we must see of them in high stations, a true reflection of whom we are. If our leaders are so uneducated, the solution lies in making education even more widely available and not framing a law barrier against the poor and poorly educated from power stations.
Any leader who argues on the current provisions of free education is simplistic of the matter and lacklustre in reason, for there are many factors to consider such as provision per capita, social cultural matters and duration. This education provision is not in restrospect and the people not merely circumspect to its provision.
National leadership should not be a professional occupation. It should not even be remunerated, as such, save for mere living allowance so that leaders do not end up as destitutes of our own civility.
Wherefore Not Seek the Highest Qualification?
If numbers do not bother us in the quality of leaders we call out based on proffesionalism, then we should be going for the very maximum as the minimum rather than basic and a far less consequantial benchmark as the hallmark of our very minimum. This means that the entry to parliament should be by masters degree as a matter of required speciality and a PhD for the President, and that law degrees at masters level forms the required qualification in lawmaking and leadership postions right below the President. But why would that not be the case? Because most of those that constructed this law did not readily and widely posses this qualification, and so they simply settled for the ones they had and did so, without any care of disadvantaging the majority Zambian poor people.Therein lies the rub—THE SELFISHNESS LEADERS BRING TO HIGH STATIONS.
The Theory of Dr. Francis Chigunta
Going another mile, Dr. Francis Chigunta of the University of Zambia, in his paper titled “Perspectives of Zambia 2016 elections” once introduced another view point that questioned the morality of the constitutional clause in question. He did so, particularly in respect to citizens with higher qualification who did not posses a grade 12 certifacte, addressing the paradoxical requirement:
‘On the one hand, the clause is intended to ensure that better qualified contestants take up political position. On the other hand, the clause will make it difficult for contestants to qualify for political office. Not only is the clause paradoxical, it is also ambiguous and confusing. Does a contestant who possesses a Bachelors, Masters, or even a PhD without a Grade 12 certificate qualify? In some cases, someone can obtain a higher qualification from a prestigious institution of higher learning based on other considerations such as work experience. The Constitutional Court (which is yet to be established), together with the two ECZs (Electoral Commission of Zambia and the Examination Council of Zambia) will have to interpret this’, he wrote.
It is a well-known fact that the Patriot Front (PF) did not care to learn and appreciate the idea of rights and let alone civil liberties and democracy as a matter of practice. They did not understand that democracy and governance is synonymous with PEOPLE PARTICIPATION. They did not understand that a right is natural and comes from God, and that a right ceases to be a right and become a privilege when an academic or professional qualification encumbrance becomes a prerequisite to the right. Rights are simply not hindered by anything of unnatural circumstance. They are natural as of God.
It is now self-evident, that PF foisted laws on the people and it is utterly wrong for anyone now to perpetuate those bad laws, such as the one in question. We must appreciate people’s rights and bear the shame of exclusion even where our own personal circumstances do favour us, alright.
Certainly, it can not only be wrong when a colonialist does it and become so right when the ways of our own brothers and sisters become architectural to such an overbearing fashion of ‘colonialism’.
Clearly, those without the grade 12 certificate have been taken hostage by the well-educated elite few. The questions glaring before our eyes remains: Why do the elite hold such deep aversion to the poor? WHAT DO THEY FEAR IN MAJORITARIANISM? Why do they fear the idea of equal opportunity? Why can’t the educated compete with the uneducated on a field levelled by EQUAL RIGHTS? If we allow the uneducated to contest polls, the educated could well use their comparative advantage to de campaign the least educated, and not to beat their fingers away from it all.
50% -Plus-One vis-à-vis 70% without Grade 12 Certificate, and National Security
We sought a 50%-plus-one to address ourselves to the need for legitimacy even at the risk of a prohibiting cost in re-runs, and considering the aversion this new administration holds to the high costs of running by-elections. But every nationalist will be highly concerned with the people’s need for a greater sense of belonging to the nation. In national security, the people are the last-line of national defence. To do that, the people must retain a full sense of ownership, from which patriotism grows. The raise of a class society and widespread discrimination of the poor does not augment that required sense of nationalism and patriotism. It dissolves it.
Conclusion: in Petition of Thee, Hon. Minister—Through You to Cabinet and Parliament
In the end, no one has any right, whatsoever—not by fiat, to take away the rights of the uneducated to compete, like any other, in their nation. We cannot even afford to ignore 70 percent of this nation only to proffer for inclusion, a smaller section of people and be justified.
Injustice must be stopped. I’m thus persuaded to lay my petition to thee, Hon. Minister and through you to Cabinet and to Parliament, so that, by the work of your own consciouses, you must cause the repeal of Article 70 (b) of the Constitution of Zambia. This we must do with a sense of premonition to the truth which is of the people’s right, whom the educated, powerful and well-connected ought to defend, and politicians such as yourself ought to love beyond a solicitation for votes—by the full application of the principle of equality before the law. The law must not only be seen to presume it EQUAL, when we stand before it. It must presume it even more EQUAL in its construct, and assume it hereditary to all, so much that we should not have to suffer any such perdition into the old ways ever again. THOSE WITHOUT GRADE 12 CERTIFICATES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED SECOND CLASS CITIZENS IN THEIR NATION.
And so, what could possibly nullify the pain of such a creaking class divide that negates fellows, except that we be just, as of God, for our equals?
SIKWINDI SITULA
Phone: +260 977 453 132
April 12, 2025
@topfans
UPND Zambia
WAGON MEDIA
The Falcon
Mark Simuuwe
Sikwindi Situla
Hon Batuke Imenda
Hakainde Hichilema
W.K Mutale Nalumango