By Kellys Kaunda
SELF-RIGHTEOUS UPND THROWS FEEBLE PUNCHES AT THE UN
UPND is lying totally naked and exposed for the whole world to see it for what it is – a confirmed abuser of human rights of the premium kind!
Helplessly and hopelessly, it has attempted to land punches into the UN Special Rapporteur’s report on its human rights record but lamentably failed.
The report pulls no punches clearly calling a spade a spade. Expecting a diplomatic massage, UPND has remained stunned by the uncompromising nature of the rebuke
Unable to find its own words with which to construct a response, UPND just replicated standard public relations responses its former abuser PF used when it was in a similar position.
How and who the UPND government expected to believe what apparently it couldnt even believe itself, I don’t know!
I wonder how it feels to be on the receiving end of what you accused your opponent of. I am sure it must be confusing, to be modest in my estimate.
One major problem with UPND is that it thinks it’s different from PF. It thinks that when it says it has restored the rule of law then it has actually happened.
No, nothing has happened to advance human rights beyond the previous government. In fact, UPND has doubled-down on its predecessor’s record.
UPND has no moral capacity to change. It has no political will to truly give Zambia a new dawn as far as human rights are concerned.
The day UPND will acknowledge that it has lamentably failed on the human rights front is the day it will discover the moral resources and the political will required to do the right thing.
When the international community, including the UN criticised the PF government accusing it of human rights violations, UPND was cheering and dancing.
The international community made its observations informed partly by the complaints that UPND would regularly make.
The UN and several foreign governments have resident missions in Zambia. Their members of staff are witnesses to the human rights activities of the Zambian government.
So, when the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights or the Special Rapportuer on human rights issues a statement on Zambia’s human rights record, its not doing so without the benefit of being on the ground.
Ka Kellys
You are too shallow to think that human rights are only for politicians.PF tormented every Zambian, especially if you wore or bore anything red.Cadres became police and council employees.
That UN official is just a rapporteur.She is allowed some guess work because her reports have no force anywhere.World leaders and investors have already approved Zambia
She looked at Mundubile and Makebi sitting across her office desk and thought ,they are soo tall,dark and handsome.They must be political prisoners
It seems the writer is an excited reporter whose analytical ability is not up to speed.
Is he aware that the UN head actually had a engagement with government institutions and participated in the hand over of the accused to government with the Church mother bodies being the witnesses. This was done with the full understanding of the gravity of the matter at hand.
Is the UN official rapporteur insinuating that the UN facilitated in enabling a UN violation to be executed. Why did they not refuse to hand over the accused persons if they believed they were political prisoners why did insist on fair play and called on the courts to interpretate the law as contained in the constitution and and as enshrined in our national laws.
I find it unprofessional to condemn a process and procedure the same institution participated in and used in delivering the accused the authorities as already officially announced.
On what authority was the earlier action of release based on? The sudden change of language is inconsistent with the earlier official communication. What has significantly change to make such a sharp turn without giving any substantive evidence.
The actual position of the UN needs to be clarified. Do they believe the accused are political prisoners? What has led them to that conclusion. Is this their understanding when the released the accused to the security authorities to answer for the alleged treason charges. Two different statements from the same institution. What causes this type of inconsistency?
What is the accurate position we really want to know.This double tongued approach is confusing.